Bruce Campbell has the chin...
The Law Returns. This Time With His Helmet On! Judge Dredd!
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
And he is, of course, Bruce Freakin' Campbell, which is a win in and of itself.
Well, here's a turn-up. Director Pete Travis has departed in post-production!!!!!!! Creative differences are being cited. Seems writer/ producer Alex Garland may be overseeing the remainder of the project (which may include re-shoots).
Given the strength of Garland's CV - 28 Days Later, Sunshine - that's no bad thing, IMHO, even if he's untested as a director.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=83035
Given the strength of Garland's CV - 28 Days Later, Sunshine - that's no bad thing, IMHO, even if he's untested as a director.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=83035
i'd say i have a bad feeling about this, if it weren't for the fact, i've already given up on it being any cop. any good pun so not intended.
This film was already behind the 8-ball just being Dredd. The fact Dredd got the reboot card at all was amazing imo. This post production fiasco is going to make the Conan box office take US & Global seem great.
Interesting development, I'd be worried if it wasn't someone like Garland didn't step in. It is his script afterall so he would know the material better than anyone. The script was really good so I would hate to see this movie suffer from any problems during post that would alter that script.
Only time will tell of course but it's hard to see how this kind of midstream switch can be a positive thing. I mean can anyone think of any previous films that actually benefited from this type of behind the scenes strife?
On the one hand Pete Travis's CV never did look all that impressive and I gather what few feature films he's done before didn't do good business. While Garland's track record is decidedly better, near as I can tell he's never directed before and lets be realistic, being both a good writer and a good director is very rare.
On the other hand I suppose it's good that concerns over the product's quality are being acted on rather than left to fester and if anyone's going to address them I suppose the screen writer is the best man for it. I suppose the real give away will be if the movie gets the Alan Smithee credit.
[EDIT]
Looks like certain parties have the wrong end of the stick as Travis and Garland have issued a joint statement to straighten things out.
On the one hand Pete Travis's CV never did look all that impressive and I gather what few feature films he's done before didn't do good business. While Garland's track record is decidedly better, near as I can tell he's never directed before and lets be realistic, being both a good writer and a good director is very rare.
On the other hand I suppose it's good that concerns over the product's quality are being acted on rather than left to fester and if anyone's going to address them I suppose the screen writer is the best man for it. I suppose the real give away will be if the movie gets the Alan Smithee credit.
[EDIT]
Looks like certain parties have the wrong end of the stick as Travis and Garland have issued a joint statement to straighten things out.
Interestingly while looking at the original story published by The LA Times, they were getting their info from "three people with knowledge of the production who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak about the situation publicly." Could be some political backstabbing behind the scenes or just crew members playing silly buggers perhaps? That or *gasp* the journalists aren't using reliable sources?!
Last edited:
^ I was just about to post that update, hadn't seen your post. Hopefully Garland and Travis aren't bullshitting us and that this is just their way of working together.
The statement sounds like an attempt by the studio to make certain everything is fine and the production is on target. "Unorthodox collaboration" indeed.
^If it was a studio press release I might agree, but this is a joint statement from the writer and director.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, collaborative relationships similar to this have worked in the past. The Coen brothers and the Wachowski siblings spring to mind. There's also the situation with Sin City where Frank Miller ended up as co-Director and of course there's just about any time Rodriguez has worked with Tarantino. Granted none of these examples *exactly* match this situation (as far as I know) and ones' opinion of the finished products is subjective, but I'd say it's still well within the bounds of possibility.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, collaborative relationships similar to this have worked in the past. The Coen brothers and the Wachowski siblings spring to mind. There's also the situation with Sin City where Frank Miller ended up as co-Director and of course there's just about any time Rodriguez has worked with Tarantino. Granted none of these examples *exactly* match this situation (as far as I know) and ones' opinion of the finished products is subjective, but I'd say it's still well within the bounds of possibility.
I have no problem with collaborative relationships on a production. There is just something fishy about this statement right after the report that the director had been fired. I sincerely hope that everything is as they would have us believe. I'm also excited to see the first trailer which we should be getting relatively soon. Perhaps in the next month or so if things are still on track.
Well it's obviously not a coincidence, they're directly addressing these reports. Also, the response came several days after the initial claims were reported which is plenty of time for the story to filter back to the production and for them to draft a brief statement clarifying the situation. Honestly, I don't see anything fishy in this.
Not really much but something...a Lawmaster chase storyboard from the film.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/01/02/lawmaster-chase-storyboard-from-dredd-movie/
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/01/02/lawmaster-chase-storyboard-from-dredd-movie/
Speaking of Judge Dredd, has anyone here read John Wagner's story America that he wrote for the Judge Dredd Megazine? I've read that in that, Dredd's "heroic" status is called into question and there are moments where he comes across more as a villain. What do other people think about this?
Not the first time Dredd has been played as the villain, at the end of the day the Law is all to him (mostly, he has mellowed) and he's banged plenty of people up for relatively minor crimes, that's why he and Batman play off each other so well, Law vs. Justice, the two not neccesarily the same thing.
Judges are supposed to have nothing in their lives that could potentially distract from their dedication to duty and the Law. There are some Judges who have voiced their disagreement with the celibacy rule (and those who have broken it, of course).
The celibacy rule also seems to be a Mega-City 1 thing - Brit-Cit and Emerald Isle Judges are allowed to get married, and the Judges of Oz seem too laid back to be bothering with such a policy.
Props to Ridley Scott, Edward Norton and the execs of Kingdom of Heaven.
FWIW, Weaving's V doesn't quite "sell it" for me. While it looks ok in the comics, all his scenes of "talking" with Evey where his mask is shown look weird to me.
I kinda liked Stallone's Dredd portrayal. The characteristic Stallone Sneer made his mask-wearing Dredd pretty good. Not to mention him being the LAW!!
Last edited:
There are many stories like that - in an earlier story about a march calling for democracy - Dredd and other judges use all sorts of means to either discredit or eliminate all the leaders of the march. One they make out to be a soviet collaborator who killed his fellow citizens (based on a picture they have of him at a fancy dress party); another is an old man who they arrest on trumped up charges and keep awake for two days so he is unfit to lead the march. Finally on the day of the march, undercover Judges start fights so that the riot squad can move in.
Similar threads
