New Judge Dredd never removes helmet...

[MIB41]

The director for the new Judge Dread film has offered some details about his character. He says Dredd will never remove his helmet and he'll never kiss his female co-star. Hmmm. From the looks of Dredd, I would say he's got bigger problems than that. For such a physical character, they sure didn't select someone with much of a build. As a matter of fact, this guy looks ENTIRELY too puny. I can't take him seriously in that oversize helmet and tiny shoulders. He looks like a convention fan. I still prefer the Stallone version. While not perfect, it was still a solid film. Less humor from Rob Schneider would have given it a better flavor. And I didn't mind seeing Stallone without the helmet. You have to know the man to see what motivates him. And having Diane Lane jumping about in tights was great eye candy.

Judge Dredd Creator Drops Details on the Big Screen Version | Superhero Hype

[thunderbolt]

That's two good pieces of news about this, sounds like he's staying pretty true to character.

[The Bat]

I don't know...I'm not a Judge Dredd fan, but knowing Karl Urban is playing him makes me want to see it.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

I dunno; that's like saying "....and in the new Batman film, Batman won't be an alien from Krypton sent to Earth by his father, Darth Vader." Not nearly enough to get me excited, especially since the "Judge Minty" fan film looks a lot better. (AND authentic.)

>this guy looks ENTIRELY too puny.

Haw! "Convention Fan!" Yeah.... and I don't think the bulked up costume helps. Makes him look like an extra from an 80's post-apocalyse film.

>Less humor from Rob Schneider would have given it a better flavor

Kinda. The old comic was a parody, but the film had the wrong kind of humour. It felt like "Lethal Weapon 3.5." The funny should have come from the weird circumstances of the setting, and how deadly serious everyone reacts to them. Everything in the comic is overblown; that's kind of the point. (A "Madness of Crowds" kind of thing.) Nobody just robs a bank; you hijack the transport carrying the riches from Liberache's Tomb. Nobody rides a skateboard; they seal themselves inside indestructible pinballs and go bouncing throughout the city. And if someone DOES something mundane, like graffiti; it turns into a citywide war requiring H-Wagons and an army of Judges to stop.

....compared to that, the first movie was blah.

>You have to know the man to see what motivates him

The problem with that is Dredd's supposed to be the embodiment of a faceless, opressive system; giving him a face detracts from that. Same with trying to humanize him; in the comic he always knew he was a clone, and didn't care. Dredd doesn't really care about a LOT of stuff.... it's what made him unique.

Don C.

[MIB41]

I think it's like any comic adaptation - How much of the concept can be successfully translated to film? This new film will be an interesting interpretation. I will go see it. I just don't know if audiences will follow. The marketing campaign will really have to come firing out of the gates. And it will be interesting since they are using an actor you will never see.

[ctc]

>How much of the concept can be successfully translated to film?

That's an interesting question. I think part of the problem; which shouldn't BE a problem, is the conventions of differeing media. There's a different "right way" for comics and movies. I say it shouldn't be a problem since there's nothing you can't do on film. The ol' "but it doesn't work on the big screen" isn't an insurmountable obstacle.... it's more an excuse to play things safe. That is, conform to the alreadt established conventions. (The Judge Minty trailer was made without a big company backing it, and it's remarkably comic accurate; even the panoramic shots, which would be the most expensive.)

Big budget stuff is hamstrung by this kind of thinking. NOBODY'S gonna take any REAL risk.... too much money and too many cushy jobs at stake. Thing is; all the stuff that made the Dredd comic so cool INTENTIONALLY flies in the face of convention. That's what was so cool. There's already way too many things in this one that make me sad: the NEED for armour, the scaled down bikes, CADET Anderson.... (In the comic she's almost Dredd's equal. I suspect in the film she's the standard semi-competent yet plucky female sidekick.) Sure, keeping the helmet on for the whole film (SO FAR....) is on track, but it's such a basic core element of the character that the fact they feel the need to point it out instills me with concern. ("....and in OUR film, Batman has a cape AND a mask! Like a bat!")

>This new film will be an interesting interpretation. I will go see it.

I'll see it on cable, but I suspect not in the theater.

>it will be interesting since they are using an actor you will never see

I say "so far" 'cos that's one of the big film-isms: "we PAID for the guy, we're gonna show him off!" I could easily see this one getting negotiated out of the film; either by Urban's agent or the studio higher-ups. Another hazard of big film making: no real vision. Too many fingers in the pie mucking it up as you go along, instead of one (or a few) minds following a sturdy framework.

Don C.

[MIB41]

I say "so far" 'cos that's one of the big film-isms: "we PAID for the guy, we're gonna show him off!" I could easily see this one getting negotiated out of the film; either by Urban's agent or the studio higher-ups. Another hazard of big film making: no real vision. Too many fingers in the pie mucking it up as you go along, instead of one (or a few) minds following a sturdy framework.
Don C.

You make excellent points. But your last comment is where I go back to what I was saying about the industry and what we, as fans, can reasonably expect to get translated to film. Your absolutely right. Anything from the comics SHOULD be able to be translated to film. But we have a film industry that has to assess whether there is an audience for that translation and whether they can find quality actors to play the roles. And then you have all of the politics that go into contracts for the actors, commitment to sequels, and where they get paid for their likeness, etc, etc, etc. And after all that, you have to show it to a studio full of stuffed shirts who determine whether it's worthy as a thoughtful two hour film or a 90 minute travesty. So does the project's commercial aspirations dilute the potential for it to be an honest translation or is it simply a vehicle to push product? None of us know for sure until we pack the theaters.

[BlackKnight]

Urban is a Good Actor ...., I believe everything he gets involved in ..., But Just can't picture Him as Dredd ....

I didn't even know there was a New Movie..., I stumbled across some new Dredd Props on BBTS ..., Helmet, Shield Badge and Gun ..., I guess I know Why Now.

[Bruce Banner]

The fact that he'll never remove the helmet is great, but I still have a problem with the costume design.

From the stills that have been released so far, the Judge uniform is very lacklustre and ordinary looking.

They should have adhered more closely to the comic version, with the iconic eagle pauldron.

And Urban might not be the ideal choice. I think Ron Perlman would have been cool in the role.

But I'm glad Judge Anderson is in the movie.

[The Toyroom]

My question is: Who was asking for a new Judge Dredd film?

[ctc]

>Who was asking for a new Judge Dredd film?

After the last one, I really gotta wonder.... but Dredd's a known name, and that's what really matters. A recognizable brand.... even if it's recognizable for being particularly unfortunate is still considered better than an unknown. (After a certain period of time it becomes "camp.")

But the Dredd comic still has a decent following, so I suppose that doesn’t hurt.

>So does the project's commercial aspirations dilute the potential for it to be an honest translation or is it simply a vehicle to push product? None of us know for sure until we pack the theaters.

This is a great question, and for me the answer runs deeper than just one film. I had a conversation recently with my buddy Doak. His tastes in comics are similar to mine, and we both came up through the late 70's/early 80's underground/independent boom. He was discussing two of our mutually favourite comics: Dredd and Grimjack. For Doak, Dredd has very little re-reading value. He remembers how awesome they were when he first read ‘em, but they don’t have the same impact now. Grimjack, however does; and each time he rereads them he finds something new.

This is understandable. Dredd was the product of “entertainment by committee;” much like a Marvel or DC book. Writers and artists are assigned to it on a rotating basis. Because of this there isn’t much of a running thru-line to the book; every newcomer adds their own particular flourish to the character. It works, ‘cos the character is perpetual: there’s a new story every week. You KNOW there’s a new story every week, so you know Dredd isn’t REALLY dead, or retired, or turned to evil.... This creates a shallow story. You can’t really go in depth with anything ‘cos you’re probably gonna be moved to something else in a few weeks and a new guy will take over writing.

Now, that’s not a moral judgement or anything: you can have perfectly decent stories produced that way, and for Dredd they did indeed produce a lot of good stuff. Dredd had the advantage that it was crafted in a way that readily facilitated such things: Dredd is a faceless embodiment, so you didn’t have to worry about any sort of back story, or personal issue. Mega City One was set up so that any new, weird fad.... no matter how innocuous.... could take off, allowing a great deal of latitude in plot and presentation. The stories are really about the bad guys, and they did an astoundign job of coming up with surprising, strange and entertaining baddies. The problem is that once you know the “punch line,” there’s little left to bring you back to that particular story. It’s always about the next one.

This is the same template our superheroes were originally designed under. And it works, but it creates the aforementioned problem of replay value and more importantly for translation to other media it creates a fine balancing act. There’s so little to the character that it’s ALL essential. Change Batman’s costume and you change Batman, since so much of him IS the costume. It’s easy to go from one media to another, especially nowadays when we can SFX any weird thing a cartoonist can create.... but somewhere down the line folks tried pushing things places they really can’t go: for movies it leads to stuff like the original Dredd film trying to add drama, which doesn’t work ‘cos the character INHERENTLY lacks the capacity. We can watch him gun down a regiment of perps, adhere rigidly to the word of the Law no matter how extreme, and yet he breaks down ‘cos daddy didn’t love him? It creates too many loose ends, and too many circumstances that then need dealing with. (Like a potential lawsuit from whoever has the rights to Blade Runner....) It also dilutes the character, and invariably the changes made are towards the “right” way of making a film (like “adding drama will increase female appeal 2.5%”) which removes a measure of originality and makes everything that much more standardized and blah.

ASIDE: For comics, it leads to endless reboots ‘cos you write the character into a corner you can’t resolve without actually CHANGING things, which you can’t ‘cos of the perpetual book thing.... ‘specially if you’ve got a universe wherein a bunch of books are sharing the setting.

ASIDE TO THE ASIDE: Chris Claremont really messed things up for superhero fans. He got the X-Men back at a time when nobody really cared, and accordingly nobody paid too much attention to what he was doing; and HE was the dude that added the whole emphasis on story and character thing to supercomics. Because he was on it so long he could set the seeds for things, let things play out naturally, and actually add to the setting. And ‘cos the X-Men were kind of marginalized at the time he didn’t have to worry about the Marvel universe at large. That kinda spoiled folks and ruined things for the companies who’d LIKE to go back to the old days but have too many fans who’ve had a taste of what could be.

Grimjack is a different animal; it was Ostrander’s baby from the get go, and each artist for each era added something to their stories. Because Ostrander was the writer throughout, and the artists were kept for stretches of time it added consistency to the book. Because it was the work of only one or two people.... who were mostly left to their own devices by the higher-ups, it had what the kids call “vision.” Ostrander could change things, (and he did, actually killing the character dead a few times....) He could develop the setting and the characters as he saw fit, he could have whatever underlying ideas he wanted. That’s why Grimjack has replay value for Doak: as the reader grows, ages and develops they can see different things in the book and the character because of this consistent thought process. Girmjack doesn’t suddenly become a ninja because ninjas are now cool. He doesn’t soften because there’s talk of a Saturday Morning cartoon. The love interest is added as part of a story, not ‘cos Marketing thinks it would increase female readership. It’s the work of one mind, trying to make the point IT wants.... not a focus group and room full of writers. And it’s that consistency that allows the reader to make actual judgements and form actual opinions of the character. You can’t do that with a perpetual character.... not for long, anyhoo. That’s why the fans break runs into “eras.” (It softens the cognitive dissonance that results when you realize “MY Batman would NEVER have used the “R-word!!!!”)

Movies generally fall into the first category: there are SO MANY hands in the pie you end up with the aforementioned pap. And despite the inevitable “we were all big fans of the original!” interviews, most of the time the folks attached to these things are just doing a job. When I see the changes made already to a simple character like Dredd I flinch ‘cos like I said; it’s the small things that MAKE the character.

Or to put it more succinctly, I draw attention to the “Hi and Lois” comic:

The Comics Curmudgeon » Sunday panels

Don C.

[sprytel]

My question is: Who was asking for a new Judge Dredd film?

Surely, the same hundreds of millions of people that flocked to "Jonah Hex".

[samurainoir]

As we've seen with the TinTin film, don't underestimate the power of international box office anymore. A character that most Americans don't give a fig about, can have a huge legacy elsewhere. (ie The Phantom in India, the Netherands, and Australia).

dredd was not only a popular strip character in the commonwealth (there is a reason why this is being shot in South Africa), but the Stallone movie had great numbers overseas, as action movies of that era were always guaranteed to make money in other markets outside of north America. There is a brand recognition there in Europe and Asia. I've even got sets of oddball Judge Dredd bootleg figures from that era, bought off the streets on the far side of the planet.


Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: *$34,693,481 ***30.6%
+*Foreign: *$78,800,000 ***69.4%
=*Worldwide: *$113,493,481 *

That is profit territory once you factored in VHS, DVD, and the fact that it seemed to play endlessly on cable throughout the nineties. This kind if thing tends to have legs n Spike and TNT doesn't it?

[samurainoir]

As for the Judge Dredd comic itself, not only is it high into parody territory, particularly within it's height in Thatcher's UK, it's best to view Dredd as the antagonist in so many of the less-epic story lines that are not entirely plot driven. It's the world and characters outside of Dredd himself that are the move-able elements. In particular when he is teamed up with or against a sympathetic or even relatable character... psi Judge Anderson, Hershey, even Macgruder on the long walk, the girl named America who tried to bring democracy to the Mega City, and Garth Enns in particular recognized this formula by playi f Dredd against everyman characters like Judge Joyce of Emerald Isle.

[Bruce Banner]

Indeed, much of the effectiveness of the Dredd stories is in their merciless satire of contemporary politics and modern society.

Dredd never removes his helmet because he is supposed to represent the facelessness of a totalitarian regime and its pitiless justice system.

Readers were not initially meant to empathize with the character, although depending on the story and the writer, they have often done so.

All in all, a difficult premise to translate successfully to mainstream film.