The Law Returns. This Time With His Helmet On! Judge Dredd!

[Aragorn]

Why is he not allowed to ever show his face? Can't he take off his helmet when he's at home? Does he wear the helmet to sleep and in the shower?

[Reverend]

Gaith wrote:

---

Any other non-JD-fans think that doing a whole movie around a protagonist whose face you don't see is likely to be artistically disastrous? A 30-minute short film, maybe. But a feature?

Sorry, I just don't see it.

It's been done before, several times. In fact I've already mentioned 'V for Vendetta' once in an earlier post and that film is hardly a unique example. That's not even counting films with extensive prosthetics, of which there are legion.

Hell, you only see a little more of Batman's face than you would Dredd's and that's never been much of an impediment. Granted that little bit extra happens to be the eyes, which can make a huge difference to a performer but I think Urban is up to it.

Aragorn wrote:

---

Why is he not allowed to ever show his face? Can't he take off his helmet when he's at home? Does he wear the helmet to sleep and in the shower?

Sure he can and he does, but the way they usually frame it in the comics you never see anything above his nose, not even in profile. It's just one of those things where the helmet and uniform is so ingrained into his identity that whatever his head happens to look like without the helmet, it's not his real face. There are other factors too that tie into him being the personification of law, order and authority, which must of course be as faceless as justice is blind.

It's sort of like how you never really see Charlie in Charlie's Angels or Captain Mainwaring's wife in Dad's Army or Chef in Enterprise. You know his face is there, that logically there must be something under that visor but you never see it.

[Gaith]

^^ Both nonsimilar comparisons. V wasn't the main character of V; Evey was. And we see about as much Bruce Wayne as Batman in any of the Bats movies.

[Reverend]

Of course V was the main character. He/she was the title character for goodness sake and had just as much screen time as Evey. As important as she was, the whole film was about Evey discovering V, she was the audience's POV into the world.

As for Batman, I'm pretty sure in most of the films, Bats had at least as much screen time as Bruce and I don't think I've heard anyone say "I'm sick of that freak in the mask, I want more of that smarmy rich bloke!"

But if you want a more relevant example, how about the most glaringly obvious; Vader. Sure the films don't follow him around all the time but he had several rather powerfully emotional scenes across 3 films and the mask (which showed nothing of the actor's face) to say nothing of his voice being dubbed after the fact was never an impediment to realising the character.

All you're really missing with Dredd is the eyes and a skilled character actor would still has plenty to work with. Hell, Levar Burton managed to get along with a hairclip covering his eyes for seven years and it didn't stop him from effectively portraying an engaging character.

[JacksonArcher]

Cyclops never took off his visor...

[Christopher]

Reverend wrote:

---

Hell, you only see a little more of Batman's face than you would Dredd's and that's never been much of an impediment.

Except some Batman movies have made a point of unmasking him at key moments, particularly in Batman Returns, where it was done very awkwardly and gratuitously in the climax. Even the '66 movie was written to give Bruce Wayne a larger amount of screen time than he usually had in the series.

Reverend wrote:

---

As for Batman, I'm pretty sure in most of the films, Bats had at least as much screen time as Bruce and I don't think I've heard anyone say "I'm sick of that freak in the mask, I want more of that smarmy rich bloke!"

But the point is, we did see the lead actor out of the mask. It wasn't all mask all the time.

But if you want a more relevant example, how about the most glaringly obvious; Vader. Sure the films don't follow him around all the time but he had several rather powerfully emotional scenes across 3 films and the mask (which showed nothing of the actor's face) to say nothing of his voice being dubbed after the fact was never an impediment to realising the character.

But David Prowse wasn't a big-name actor. If they'd cast, say, Paul Newman in the role, you can bet they would've unmasked Vader halfway through the first film or ditched the idea of a face mask altogether. A famous face is a valuable commodity. It's worth money. If a studio spends a lot of money on a famous actor, they generally expect that actor to be seen. This is why Sylvester Stallone took off his helmet as Dredd. This is why Tobey Maguire was constantly unmasked as Spider-Man. It's about the studio wanting to get the most for their dollar.

In this case, it probably helps that, though Urban's star is on the rise, he's not a superstar like Stallone, not quite a household face, as it were. He's more a character actor than a leading man whose face on a poster automatically sells tickets or DVDs. So there's not as much pressure to make his face visible.

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

Cyclops never took off his visor...

He was visorless at least twice in the films: in the climax of the first film, when Magneto took his visor to force him to keep his eyes closed, and in The Last Stand when Phoenix was holding back his eyebeams.

[JacksonArcher]

Christopher wrote:

---

He was visorless at least twice in the films: in the climax of the first film, when Magneto took his visor to force him to keep his eyes closed, and in The Last Stand when Phoenix was holding back his eyebeams.

Those were isolated incidents and only two times in three films. You're also forgetting the mid-section of the first film when Toad used his tongue to whip Cyclops' visor off, FWIW. So technically three times. My point being, though, that Cyclops either had glasses or a visor on during most of the time he was on-screen, so I don't see the problem with Judge Dredd never taking off his helmet.

[Anwar]

Cyclops' visor may have been part of the reason he was basically an extra in the movies...

[JacksonArcher]

Anwar wrote:

---

Cyclops' visor may have been part of the reason he was basically an extra in the movies...

No, that was due to Singer and his writers' never being able to really figure out what to do with him.

[Christopher]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

Those were isolated incidents and only two times in three films. You're also forgetting the mid-section of the first film when Toad used his tongue to whip Cyclops' visor off, FWIW. So technically three times. My point being, though, that Cyclops either had glasses or a visor on during most of the time he was on-screen, so I don't see the problem with Judge Dredd never taking off his helmet.

The point is that there's a difference between "rarely" and "never." And I'm not citing the removals of his visor as fodder for some kind of debate on the rightness or wrongness of showing the actor's face -- I'm simply offering a factual correction to the assertion that he never removed it. I have no agenda in that beyond getting the facts straight.

And as I explained, the problem -- which is the studios' problem, not mine -- is a matter of the fame of the actor involved. Bryan Singer could get away with keeping a visor over James Marsden's face for most of his screen time because James Marsden isn't famous. If they'd cast Brad Pitt as Cyclops, it's a guarantee that he would've spent half the trilogy with his powers neutralized so he could show his eyes. You have to realize, we fans look at these things in terms of the characters and the internal story logic, but the studios are looking at them in terms of the star power and the profit potential. If it's an obscure or only moderately known character actor, then sure, keep the face hidden the whole movie, they don't care. But if it's someone famous, someone whose face alone is a money-earner, then they want that face to be visible.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Call me crazy, but I really liked the Stallone version. (Never read the comic.) Interesting to see what Urban can do with it.

"I may throw up on my Lawgiver."

[JacksonArcher]

Christopher wrote:

---

The point is that there's a difference between "rarely" and "never." And I'm not citing the removals of his visor as fodder for some kind of debate on the rightness or wrongness of showing the actor's face -- I'm simply offering a factual correction to the assertion that he never removed it. I have no agenda in that beyond getting the facts straight.

Too bad there aren't medals or rewards for getting facts straight.

And as I explained, the problem -- which is the studios' problem, not mine -- is a matter of the fame of the actor involved. Bryan Singer could get away with keeping a visor over James Marsden's face for most of his screen time because James Marsden isn't famous. If they'd cast Brad Pitt as Cyclops, it's a guarantee that he would've spent half the trilogy with his powers neutralized so he could show his eyes. You have to realize, we fans look at these things in terms of the characters and the internal story logic, but the studios are looking at them in terms of the star power and the profit potential. If it's an obscure or only moderately known character actor, then sure, keep the face hidden the whole movie, they don't care. But if it's someone famous, someone whose face alone is a money-earner, then they want that face to be visible.

Which is a good thing Karl Urban isn't nearly as famous as Brad Pitt then.

[Samurai8472]

Anwar wrote:

---

Cyclops' visor may have been part of the reason he was basically an extra in the movies...

Geordi wants to talk to you.

[Christopher]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

Too bad there aren't medals or rewards for getting facts straight.

I don't seek any. It's just my nature to be precise, to value and respect the facts for their own sake, and for the sake of any others who may value having accurate information.

Which is a good thing Karl Urban isn't nearly as famous as Brad Pitt then.

Precisely my point.

[JacksonArcher]

Christopher wrote:

---

I don't seek any. It's just my nature to be precise, to value and respect the facts for their own sake, and for the sake of any others who may value having accurate information.

Maybe you should change your name to Data.