|
Jace Madan posted:I'm really looking foward to seeing this, the way it's being described here makes it sound like exactly the movie I want to see. Apparently, this movie was originally written as Judge Dredd vs. Judge Death, but then they thought the script was a bit "too surreal" and that the whole thing would be incomprehensible to non-fans. Also budget. So they went with an everyday "day in the life" sort of approach instead with eyes towards doing sequels later. Personally, I hope they get a big-budget sequel and then blow the budget on fads and crazes, fatties, robots, and mutants. I want to see a city perpetually in a state of self-destructive boredom and consumerist misery, at least in the less slummy parts. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Sep 11, 2012 |
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Mr.48 posted:Look at its this way: If any daily publication knows fascism, its them. Honestly, I would have been more upset if they gave it a glowing review and said that it showed "the medicine modern Britain needs"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Wasn't Ireland pretty chill, too? Of course, they turned it into a theme park, I believe.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:I wonder if the delayed US release is actually intended bump the opening weekend by generating word of mouth buzz over the internet from UK viewers and reviewers. It's certainly getting a lot of great reviews on RT, and of course just about everyone here is raving about it. A film made on a tight budget like this can't have a lot to splash around on marketing Yeah, pretty smart. Especially since Dredd/2000 AD has a lot more name recognition in the UK anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Emnity posted:Please dont suck as much as I am expecting. The Stalone movie was ok, but that's about it really. This could well be the same poo poo with more modern effects. If you thought the Stallone movie was "ok", then your standards are low enough that this movie will probably seem like a masterwork.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Realism of design. It's also meant to be a little closer to the birth of MC-1 than the comics were. In the comic timeline MC-1 emerged out of the increasing urbanisation of the East Coast some time in the late 2020s. In the movie, it looks like the first City Blocks went up just before the Atomic War and the lower city has grown up around them. Also, Dredd's shoulder-pads match the smaller ones from the early comics 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
picosecond posted:"Democracy" was a good story, though. If it were up to me, I'd do five movies -- with Judge Death/Necropolis as the third, then a wind down film, with an adaptation of Democracy as a finale that owns up to how fascist the Judge System becomes. Becomes? The Judge system has always been pretty fascist. That's the joke.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 13:36
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yup it's taking people's demand for the police to get even more tough on crime to its logical satirical conclusion. Also, Meg One is basically Thatcherite fear-mongering about a nanny state taken literally. Sugar is illegal, there's like 95% unemployment due to robots doing all the work, and almost everyone lives entirely on welfare and sits around either zoned out watching future-TV or is out causing trouble mostly out of boredom. The Cursed Earth, on the other hand, is basically corporate libertopia, all the way down to fast food companies running their own societies. It's one of the few places on earth worse to live in than the Mega-cities. Oh, and people realizing how horrible their life is and going on a violent killing spree is so common that they're called futzies, short for "Future Shock Syndrome." This last one is basically actually like real-life America now. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
picosecond posted:Isn't there a progression, though? Like, when we first see Dredd, things are already pretty fascist and it just gets worse from there. What I'm saying is that this would be a cool thing to watch over the course of a movie series -- the hero of the piece getting more and more violent, rigid, authoritarian. By the 4th or 5th movie, it's to where he only looks good at all against enemies who are even worse. But I guess that might make him totally unsympathetic, which makes him unmarketable. No, not really. He was pretty fascist from the get-go. Personally, I'm against any character progression. Nobody would notice it over the course of a movie series, and it would be pretty much unrecognizable from the typical Flanderization the characters in your typical movie franchise undergo anyway. At the same time, it's not a bad idea or anything. I prefer them playing him as basically an anti-character that refuses to develop. Attempts to humanize Dredd rarely work out well. The only reason Judge Dredd is even sympathetic in the first place is because he's the protagonist, and the antagonists are even worse than he is. That's already more or less how things are. You're not really meant to sympathize with Dredd. He's basically a faceless robot built to uphold the law. He's more a plot device and force of nature than a person, at a certain point. I'd rather have the next movies move towards more exploration of the greater society of the series. Generic future slum is ok and all, but I think insane future city of bored consumers is a relatively less covered topic in film. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
etalian posted:And the Block Wars is also pretty much the ultimate US gun nut fantasy of being able to deal with their annoying neighbors using their small weapon collection. Ha, yes. Each block in the original comic is like a self-contained arcology or city-state, usually with its own militia, and they get in these ridiculous spats that occasionally escalate into all-out war, especially since everyone has nothing better to do anyway. Also sounds kind of like some American libertarian fantasies, actually. Most are named after ancient celebrities, which is usually played for laughs, like Tom Cruise block getting into a block war with Nicole Kidman block back in the 90s (during their divorce IRL). Fatties are funny, too. Originally, they're just people who dealt with their boring, meaningless lives with overeating. But in a society where everyone's food is carefully rationed to maintain a healthy weight, they're basically forced to become sort of like addicts or hackers who try to game the system in order to get more food and get fat. Now it's become a cult-like identity because, gently caress it, why not? It's a literally consumerist identity that people adapt because of an empty, meaningless existence in a bleak, loveless society. Sound familiar? Now that I think about, focusing too much on that side of the IP would basically turn it into ultra-violent gritty live-action Futurama: the movie. Wait, no, that would still be cool. I also hope the movie shows/eventually shows the Statue of Justice, which is a enormous statue of a judge that keeps watch on the much smaller Statue of Liberty. Not exactly subtle symbolism there, but, hey, it's a comic book about people being kicked in the head by future supercops. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Stoatbringer posted:Johnny Alpha time-or-dimension jumped to Mega City 1 one time, and there have also been crossovers with Batman and Aliens. In the early progs, he was a skinnier and had slightly less ridiculous shoulders:  Movie Dredd actually looks shockingly similar. Too bad the movie gun looks kind of wonky in stills (not that it really matters in motion). Johnny Alpha, too: 
OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I've got crazy mixed feelings about this film. On one hand it's a great, fun, ultraviolent action film. On the other it's a pretty positive endorsement of fascism. I know Dredd's supposed to be satirical, but when you drain the satire away as this film does what's left? I think something you miss is that, while people who don't know about the property won't know its origins as satire, they also to some extent won't know that Dredd is a fascist. Not just in the strict sense of fascism but even in the more colloquial sense of rigid authoritarianism. Especially since the most non-standard part of the movie's premise - having one man as judge, jury, and executioner - isn't actually fascist per se and instead is a more veiled idea of a warped judicial system as a whole, since the judges are basically extrajudicial death squads that have been given official sanction. Which is basically what your typical movie cop or action hero is much of the time anyway. In the course of the film, the viewer for the most part don't actually see the judges doing anything your typical action hero wouldn't do. Even the most extreme action of ostensible peace officers summarily executing criminals is pretty heavily normalized in your typical action movie anyway, and even in real life to a limited extent (at least if you live in the US). The simple fact of a violent, militarized police force with no accountability is similarly pretty much status quo for the US, too. Yes, there are definitely troublesome implications if you think about it, but at a surface level, the film is hardly a "ringing endorsement" of fascism since so much of the fascist content is latent and there's not a lot of room for it to be expressed in between slow-mo face-shootings. To some extent, your knowledge of the property itself simply brings the inherently disturbing aspects of your typical "badass cop kills bad guys" movie to the fore, though not to say that this is entirely so. Certainly there are bad implications, again particularly the summary executions part, which is of course admittedly distinct from what I've characterized before as "typical movie cop behavior." But I wouldn't say they are as visible to the viewer as you'd think. Even then, it doesn't reach particularly far past the level of famous renegade cops/unlawful vigilantes from its classic movie influences like Dirty Harry or Death Wish era Bronson, and though the legal implications are subtly different, they are much more subtle than they are overt. I do agree, however, that the film could have done with more satirical elements or showed more negative consequences to Dredd's actions, though. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Sep 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I think Dredd differs from renegade badass police films in that in films of that ilk the protagonist is explicitly portrayed as working outside the system to their personal detriment. I haven't seen 'The Sweeney', but I'm guessing if it's about cops breaking the law to preserve the law they're running the risk of suffering the consequences of their actions, even if they're working for the common good within the context of the plot. Dunno, I disagree in that the narrative of most renegade cop films isn't a cop breaking the law to preserve the law, but rather a cop breaking the law to protect some higher ideal of justice that is not served by what is seen as a corrupt or ineffectual legal system. Rogue cop films, as typified by the Dirty Harry films, are to me a classic part of the Thatcher/Reagan-era anti-government government narrative (I am ignoring here the fact that the first Dirty Harry came out in like 1970 as a response to the controversy over the US v. Miranda case and the beginning of what we now know as the Miranda Rights). A way to help sugar and normalize the double-think required to get people to accept an anti-government political stance even though the government manages to do a lot of things for people quite successfully. The key is this idea of a rogue who is simultaneously of the government and yet heroically defying it at the same time. As distinct from past cowboys and vigilantes that were fundamentally lawless and outside the system. In other words, it individualizes the concept of government and avoids attacking trusted institutions themselves, yet manages to spread this narrative that all the failures of those government institutions are due to bureaucratic and hidebound adherence to rules while the successes are all due to these Randian supermen who know better than the rules. It's the suggestion that governments can succeed only when the brilliant yet renegade cops are allowed to do whatever they want. Just like we should let the Reagan administration and Oliver North go rogue and do whatever they want, laws and congress be damned. Judge Dredd basically took that implicit narrative and made it literal. The personal consequences implied in such films are always used to accentuate just how good the rebel hero cops are - they are putting their own careers at risk to help people or whatever. The fact that this isn't the case in Dredd actually almost implies the opposite just by its absence from the typical formula. The very essence of Judge Dredd is that he is a pro-police power fantasy. That's basically an exact description of the character. He's future dystopia Dirty Harry in a helmet and gimp suitand without all the waffling and moralizing about consequences and the law afterwards. I do agree with you that more should have been done to play up the satire angle. However, just like the saying that there's no such thing as an anti-war war movie, stupid people are going to miss the point and root for Judge Dredd anyway. I think this is almost intentional - it's poisoning the pot. When people start saying we need a "Judge Dredd" in real life, it's far more hurtful to their cause and easy to ignore than if they say that we need a "Dirty Harry," who was relatively more realistic. Despite its failure to clearly condemn or satirize the system it portrays, I also don't think it "does the opposite" of mocking the idea of a totalitarian police state. The fundamentally violent and unreal way in which the whole subject is treated arguably does little to make it more appealing to people nor does it show, to me, tacit approval beyond that implicit in having Dredd be the protagonist in the first place. If anything, the point you made about how there doesn't really seem to be any real point to the whole drug raid in the first place, shows some implied disapproval. Jedit posted:The satire in Dredd always derived from playing an insane concept absolutely straight. You're not laughing at the strip, you're laughing at the people who would look at it and think "that's what we need". Especially when the movie goes to this level of blood-and-guts in terms of visually showing just how brutal and ugly that regime really is, in practice. Dunno, I feel like just the association of ultra-violence and dirtiness with the idea already implies a tacit disapproval. The Judge system, it says, is a symptom and/or product of a sick and desperate society. But then again, I'm from the US, where basically policemen can already shoot people on sight (if they're black and no-one's watching). OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Sep 21, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:To be fair the only 3d movie I have seen other then this is Captain America. Also the 3d made the slow mo scenes really cool. That explains it, then. Captain America was also not shot in 3d and was converted from regular 2d after the fact, which made the 3d effect pretty lame compared to "real" 3d where a special 3d camera is used to film the movie and adds a lot more depth, which is what most people recognize as "good" 3d. This movie was intended to be shot in 3d, but technical issues mean that a lot of the scenes were shot in 2d and converted afterwards. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Sep 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
TechnoSyndrome posted:There was plenty of showing bullet holes being made in people, but it seemed like any time anybody got mutilated they were afraid of showing it to the audience for some reason. You never get a clear look at the three bodies that got thrown off from the top of Peach Trees (they cut away after like half a second), and they never pan down to show you the thug whose arm blew up when he tried to use Anderson's gun. And all you really see when Ma-Ma hits the floor is the blood that quickly encompasses the frame. These things didn't actually bother me, it just struck me as odd seeing as the film is rated R anyways, and I can't imagine they ever considered shooting for a PG-13 rating. Maybe it's because long, lingering shots of ruined bodies isn't fun to watch for normal people? And because adding more gore than is already in the movie doesn't actually add anything to it? You don't need to show any of the shots you mention because people already know what happened and there's no need to spend more time on it. Half a second is all you need to get the desired reaction out of people. If you really want more time spent on those shots for some reason, you can pause it on DVD or just go look up photos of fatal car accidents or something. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Sep 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Personally, I didn't see a single ad for this ever and the only reason I knew it even existed was when I was invited to a screening. I feel like they did a terrible job promoting the film. Like it or not, usually it's actually considered more profitable to spend money on advertising than it is on actual content.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:Yeah, there's a thread in D&D at the moment called 'The Future of American Cities & Politics' or something nearabouts, and seeing that title makes me think of the film's version of MegaCity One. It felt depressingly plausible. To be fair, in most other comic book movies, I'd say comic book creators would be embarrassed to have their names associated with the product. And yes, modern America is basically a low-to-moderate level 80s sci-fi dystopia. Hooray.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Gonz posted:It failed here in the States because it didn't have enough krumping competitions/giant CGI robots/sparkling vampires in it. It flopped because nobody knew it existed. Seriously, I have not seen a single ad on tv or anywhere for this movie. I literally didn't even know it existed until a friend got tickets to an advance screening.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:People seriously still rely on ads? Advertising spending is highly correlated with earnings. Not everyone in the country is you or your peer group. Also, short of word-of-mouth, the only other way to find out about new movies is ads. This includes new media bullshit like blogs - you think people write those for free? All that stuff costs money and requires PR muscle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:And this isn't a website for everyone. I mean the people in this thread who mentioned not knowing about the movie. Rrelying on TV ads means you're going to miss a lot of good stuff. We're on the internet. Take 5 minutes to check IMDB/RT/Google's Coming Soon list once in a while. Or even just this forum. We're talking from the viewpoint of someone selling a product, not a consumer. Most consumers don't care that they "miss a lot of good stuff." Most people don't actively look for new movies or regularly check movie review sites. Trusting people to find out about your new product on their own is a pretty bad idea. Especially nowadays, when theatergoing is down generally, and the decision process is moving away from "I want to go to the movie theater, let's see what's playing and pick one at random." Especially when you're past the summer movie season, the school year has started, and when the product in question is more niche nerd stuff like this, all of which means that you'll depend a lot more on people specifically going to the theater to see that particular film. Getting articles in the newspaper or movie sites also takes money and PR clout. It's just another form of marketing and still requires money and influence. The advertising presence for the movie was pretty minimal compared to a typical major hollywood release. I don't have marketing numbers here, but I'm willing to bet they're pretty small, considering who the studios and US distributors are. The movie did well in the UK because it was a primarily British production about a British cultural icon, so naturally there was a lot more promotional buzz. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Sep 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:That's why it's a compelling comic. That and also sometimes just the chance to see things from the other side. The second part of the democracy arc, for instance, where Dredd uses his "dirty tricks" to dismantle the Democratic March, is a subversive way to publicize the actual tactics used by the real police against demonstrators. Stuff like blackmailing the organizers with fabricated evidence and planting undercover judges as agent provocateurs in order to justify a later crackdown by riot police. I know chances for a sequel are slim now, but a remake of the democracy storyline would be a welcome way to wash the taste of the last Batman movie from my mouth.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Yeah, a system where you blow up your own house with you in it if you get less than 4 bars on your cell phone at any time is a bad system.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
wolfman101 posted:The ending made sense thematically to me considering the movie opens with Dredd opening fire with machine guns on a highly congested freeway. His job is to uphold the law and it doesn't matter how many people have to die for that to happen. Yeah, the satire is that the justice system is based on the principle that it's more important to horribly punish criminals than it is to actually serve the public interest or protect the citizens.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:And this isn't satire so much as it is a premise. It's a satirical premise. It's expressed in an extreme way that satirizes that premise by showing its consequences with extreme violence. He cares more about revenge and punishment than protecting the citizens of the city, to the point where he's willing to open fire with machine guns on a crowded highway or risk blowing up a building to do it. He summarily executes people, often without knowing much more than "he attacked a Judge." And that scene where he burns a couple guys to death and just sits there looking at it. How is that not a satire of the "tough on crime" viewpoint? The Judge Dredd IP has always played things fairly straight as far as the main character goes. That's kind of the essence of the series - faceless, violent authoritarian policeman hero scowls at people, then shoots them. I'm not sure what more you're looking for here. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
WickedIcon posted:You know, I have a feeling this movie's gonna pull a Fight Club. Looks like all my friends are getting the same Christmas present, then.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:My impression has been that Dredd is a legendarily good judge, but only because the other judges are just that bad. He's legendarily good mostly in the sense that he's survived a long time and anyone who pisses him off ends up dead or in prison.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:I'm pretty sure it says 'debase' myself (which for some reason is even funnier and bleaker for me), but yeah it was a very nice touch. One wonders, in a world with neighborhoods of 96% unemployment, what point there might be in even putting up that sign; who has money to give them? In the comic, everyone gets free food, housing, and (I believe) money from the state to live. I forget about the last one, since it's been a while. The monetary unit is the credit. If for some reason you lose your identification, such as through a bureaucratic cock up or else actual theft, then you can still be left destitute and on the street. Or if you're mentally ill, etc., and somehow can't work the system. Or if the government is just really slow.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Man, this is a mopey thread sometimes! Who cares about the box office? "Oh no there won't be a sequel" There are hundreds of sequels to films that didn't make money. Apparently, the Judge Death thing was the original idea for this reboot, and was envisioned as a surreal and trippy existential battle. It got shelved partially because it was pretty much impossible to introduce the universe to audiences before they messed with it, and also because of budget reasons. A whacked out, surreal coda to the series where Dredd indirectly confronts a parody of himself in Judge Death after the depressing crushing of democracy in the second one sounds pretty cool to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:No its not, name one anti hero who literally locks up people for being the victims of crime. I cant think of one in a successful mainstream movie. That and the supposed sequel that adapts the Democracy storyline, which would have done a lot more of that stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Err just on that first point, opening fire with machine guns in a crowded highway is not the responsible thing to do. As usual, I can't tell if you're trolling or not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:You scare the poo poo out of me. If it helps, he's always been this dumb in every other media thread ever. I still hold out hope the whole thing is just a trolling gimmick because nobody could ever be this consistently dense and tone-deaf across such a wide range of subjects.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 13:21
|
|
|
marktheando posted:What's a proper satirical piece? Troll 2 (1990)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
The whole plot hole being discussed here is irrelevant because, as seen later on in the firm, Ma-Ma has several corrupt judges on her payroll and they could easily concoct a story where Dredd was killed by random perps who were then killed by the corrupt judges, wrapping the whole thing up with zero consequences. This wraps up any lingering issues one might have in suspending disbelief and accepting the clearly communicated premise that the heroes are in mortal danger and are not going to be protected by their official status or other social institutions (and this ignores the very clear message we see in the first few minutes of the film establishing that, in this setting, those social institutions are already so weak they are basically irrelevant anyway). Just as some alternative international titles of Die Hard were "Crystal Jungle" or "Glass Trap," the setup here is also that the heroes are trapped in the jungle, a wild and uncivilized place where they must struggle alone without outside support from society. We're all letting ourselves get side-tracked by discursions from someone treating the film as if it was something that actually happened instead of a piece of media to be analyzed critically. Though that would still be preferable if the alternative is a bunch of childish statements on morality and the world. Basically, if you think the film didn't go far enough with its satire, then that's fine. But trying to be offensive and then stubbornly planting your feet and refusing to acknowledge any opposing arguments isn't argument in good faith or even trying to stimulate discussion. It's just being annoying. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Nov 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:When it comes to dead Judges, the 6% statistic doesn't matter. All police departments in the world will rescind other priorities to investigate and avenge the deaths of their own. They will investigate the matter thoroughly and not accept things at face value. They won't dismiss it lazily like they would, say, a dead hooker in an alley. Baron Bifford posted:You might have a point. I'm "getting this" from what I know of real world police departments, but maybe the fictional world of Mega-City 1 works differently. Ma-Ma and the corrupt Judges all seriously thought they could murder Dredd and cover it up. Yeah, you don't know as much about how the police work as you think you do. Cover-ups of the murders or attempted murders of police officers have been well documented in the past. Not to mention the fact that the entire plot point you're harping on is utterly unimportant in the context of the film itself. massive spider posted:Its not going out gloriously if you don't actually try to put up a good fight. Its not an inconsistent interpretation of the character and her placidness when shes finally beaten. Because he's scrabbling for ways to keep disagreeing since every other point he's tried to make has been shot down. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Nov 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
marktheando posted:My copy is defective, I'm sickened. With replacing all these faulty copies they are going to make even less of a profit on this movie. Distribution doesn't work that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Alcholism Rocks posted:Wikipedia says most city blocks have a population of around 60k, so it's possible Ma-Ma's goons only killed around 300 people, not including members of enemy gangs. There's no jobs because robots do all the work, so everybody lives on state support. They get food, housing, etc. from the state and don't have to do anything - those blocks are actually giant housing projects. Boredom is the single biggest concern, which is why there's always tons of insane fads and crazes going around (and a sky-high suicide rate). Lots of people turn to crime because of boredom or because they want something more than the bare minimum necessary to survive. Snapping and just going on a killing spree shooting random people (one type of futsies, from 'future shock syndrome') is also incredibly common. Being fat is a crime partially because all food is given based on need, so the only way to get the extra calories to get fat is to cheat or steal extra food beyond what you're given. This is why being fat is its own weird rebel subculture/lifestyle. Also, in the comics, sugar is illegal. Along with caffeine and comic books. The overcrowding is because most of the US and the rest of the world has been rendered uninhabitable by nuclear war and environmental destruction except for (in the US) Mega-City One (NYC/Beltway/Atlantic), Mega-City Two (LA/California) and Texas City (Mega-City Three). Oh and Las Vegas, I think. The rest is The Cursed Earth, a radioactive wasteland filled with mutants, warring fast-food chain cultists, and the like. This is in part probably a joke about how New York, LA, and fake cowboy western Texas are basically the only parts of the US ever featured in any media ever. The world of the Dredd comic basically a parody of the nanny state conservatives claim to be so terrified of, combined with the tough-on-crime approach that they love. The Cursed Earth is arguably the libertarian opposite, lawless and a literal corporate wasteland filled with the Burger Wars, giant genetically engineered advertising mascots, killer mutant cannibals, etc. Alcholism Rocks posted:VVVVV - They lured two Judges into a trap (although the luring part was probably unintentional) and intended to kill them in a brutal manner...in fact, many of them did go out of their way (instead of opting to stay in their apartments) to attempt to kill the Judges. Even the two kids that got tased made a conscious decision to attempt to murder the Judges. Even in our real society, attempting to murder cops is considered wrong. Even the part where he hit those guys with the incendiary round, they first made a visible attempt to kill what they thought was a Judge. Likewise in the beginning, instead of peacefully surrendering, their first response was to fire an automatic weapon at a Judge. There's plenty of neighborhoods in the real world right now where cooperating with the cops is considered wrong, and killing cops is perfectly excusable or acceptable. People hate and fear the judges because they're miserable and the judges represent the sharp end of an oppressive system that they only ever see kicking them while they're down. And they basically have nothing to lose. Also, it's an action movie, so the bad guys shoot the protagonists just because. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jan 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 23:25
|
|