He does but he seems more upset by Lana. I guess he liked that character better than Pete so it upset him more.
The Law Returns. This Time With His Helmet On! Judge Dredd!
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
Considering the, possibley apocryphal, reports that the designers of the cityscape in Blade Runner where influenced by Judge Dredd I'm not sure if you can make Mega-City 1 less Blade Runnerish.
It's weird I know but outside of specific areas I've always thought of Mega City 1 as a well made, clean city- future building materials and vast amounts of robot labour always suggested a somewhat sterile place (albeit one covered in neon lights advertising the lastest Otto Sump products.)
I wonder if the film will embrace any of the sillier elements of MC1? Simps, bat gliders, uglies, fatties, the banning of sugar etc
I've been reading the Judge Dredd Complete Case Files recently and I noticed that in the early strips, MC-1 was generally depicted as a pretty nice place to live (aside from the horrendous unemployment and crime rates). IMO, it started to be depicted as a bit run down after the Judge Cal storyline, and it really started looking grotty after the Apocalypse War (appropriate, as half the city was nuked). Since then, there has been a succession of one city-wide disaster after another (Necropolis, Judgment Day, Inferno, Doomsday for Dredd/Mega-City 1, etc.), so the city has really never had a proper chance to recover from the Apocalypse War. Now, I don't know if this was intentional on the part of the writers and artists or just a coincidence, but to my mind, it provides a handy explanation for how the depiction of the city has evolved over the past 3 decades.
Funny when I was reading the script I was imagining Mega City One in day light and kind of a bright dystopian megatropolis. That concept design is a night time shot...I guess we'll see.
It might be worth considering that the Mega Cities are meant to be the last bastions of civilisation left on Earth and, when the strip started, they're relatively new constructions (Dredd himself is actually older than the city) and no matter how hight the unemployment rate, a city doesn't become s slum overnight, it's taken a few decades for the rot to really set in . . . and yes, the repeated and widespread devastation certainly helped!
As it stands now, my perception of the Meg is that it's pretty much like any major city (albeit on a scale larger by several orders of magnitude), you have your "nice and clean" areas where the rich folk live (mostly in the upper levels of certain larger blocs), you have your low rent - but still liveable zones (the high density accommodation equivalent to suburbs) and then you have your utter cesspools and near war zones that are like Liverpool on a good day.
Getting back to Blade Runner for a second, even there you had this divide asthere's a clear and stark contrast between the depopulated, decaying hotels, crowded streets with chaotic bazaars and the austere sterile environment that was the Tyrell buildings or even the slightly run down, but hardly impoverished apartment building where Deckard lived.
That's actually not far off. As I said above, it's like any city just exaggerated to the nth degree and anyone who thinks that civil unrest, high crime, poverty and social disorder can't possibly exist in the same place as wealth, privilege, good schools and nice clean parks probably hasn't spent much time in an actual city. Or if they have, probably didn't stray too far. I remember driving through central London once a few years back and (being a country bumpkin) was shocked when after driving down what was clearly a wealthy, clean and well tended to Notting Hill type area that turning a single corner lead me to a street with boarded up houses, burnt out cars (plural), overgrown gardens and police riot vans on every corner.
In the case of the Dredd film, it mostly takes place in a single bloc that while not totally squalid is pretty much an overcrowded slum where the gangs are really running the show. In the comics there's plenty of blocs just like it and a lot of them get away with it simply because, as in real life there's only so many Judges in the city and they can only respond to a certain number of reports, even serious crimes often go un-investigated. Also it's not just a "big" city, it's a Mega City. The place is huge and covers a whole swath of the North American east coast. Just one of the larger blocs can hold a population greater than modern day NYC and there's hundreds of them.
Last edited:
I actually really like the fact that the film is confined and we don't get to see much of Mega City One. This allows the audience to focus mainly on the actors and the action of the film.
It seems "Dredd" is getting a lot of hype at TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival)
http://www.mania.com/here-comes-judge-dredd_article_125147.html
It seems "Dredd" is getting a lot of hype at TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival)
http://www.mania.com/here-comes-judge-dredd_article_125147.html
"Dredd" is getting ready to start production next week in Cape Town, South Africa with Pete Travis and has a 45 million dollar budget. It will be filmed in 3D (ugh) and is slated for a 2012 release.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=71355
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=71355
^Actually, I think Dredd will be one of those films that deserves to be shot in 3D. Assuming the script doesn't change too radically it'll have slow motion shoot-outs, a high speed Lawmaster chase, expansive vistas and with the promise of showcasing it all with a gritty, urban style it could prove to be very intense...or they could blow it again. We'll have to wait and see.
I actually saw a little clip the other day of Guillermo del Toro discussing what he does and doesn't think should be given the 3D treatment. What I find interesting is the implication that he doesn't see The Hobbit as a big spectacle film, while his At the Mountains of Madness adaptation on the other hand will be 3D.
I actually saw a little clip the other day of Guillermo del Toro discussing what he does and doesn't think should be given the 3D treatment. What I find interesting is the implication that he doesn't see The Hobbit as a big spectacle film, while his At the Mountains of Madness adaptation on the other hand will be 3D.
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.
You're right. The movie may do well enough in areas where there's some built-in fan base, but this is about guaranteed to disappoint in the U.S. market.
Chick_McGeester
Lieutenant
I think its about time that they have more mask movies where the hero actually keeps his mask on like he should.
Yeah, because the appeal and box office revenue of all movies absolutely hinges on being able to see the protagonist's eyes.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.
You're right. The movie may do well enough in areas where there's some built-in fan base, but this is about guaranteed to disappoint in the U.S. market.
Seriously now. It's just his eyes that are covered by a visor, the rest of his face is right there in all it's scowling glory.
After reading the script again last night I don't mind this being in 3D. I can see the Lawmaster Chase along with the building block firefight working great, I wonder how they're going to pull off Anderson's interrogation with the thug and will we see Olivia Thirlby nekkid? 
Ooooh I can't wait for this movie. Forgot how much I liked the script.
Ooooh I can't wait for this movie. Forgot how much I liked the script.
Even if they're going for a full on 18 I'm pretty sure they'll shoot around showing anything too explicit. That or they'll use a body double. On the odd occasion when there's nudity in the Dredd comics it's usually pretty matter of fact and not often done for mere shock value or titillation. As I recall the intent of that scene was to show how creepy that guy was, so I imagine most of it will play off reactions.
Last edited:
That was exactly the intent of the scene.
Yeah, because the appeal and box office revenue of all movies absolutely hinges on being able to see the protagonist's eyes.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.
You're right. The movie may do well enough in areas where there's some built-in fan base, but this is about guaranteed to disappoint in the U.S. market.
Seriously now. It's just his eyes that are covered by a visor, the rest of his face is right there in all it's scowling glory.
The helmet came off and we saw his face on occasion in the strips, its not a deal breaker for this fan.
You saw enough, he's grizzled, no big mystery, we'll move on.
If Urban takes his helmet off I'm not going to walk out.
Yeah, because the appeal and box office revenue of all movies absolutely hinges on being able to see the protagonist's eyes.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.
You're right. The movie may do well enough in areas where there's some built-in fan base, but this is about guaranteed to disappoint in the U.S. market.
If you think a little bit of sarcasm is persuasive that this is an observant comment, you're mistaken and you'll see as much when the movie is released in the U.S.
And if you think that "the rest of the face" matters much when the eyes are obscured throughout a performance I'll assume just for starts that you're not a student of film composition or editing.
Indeed, I'm going to guess that for most people a comic book is a different kettle of fish to a film and the eyes will matter.
Similar threads
