|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 23, 2017 23:21:20 GMT
The 1995 box office nonstarter that poisoned the well for Dredd on screen, and may have caused trouble for the 2012 version.
But, after all these years, is it really that against THE LAUW?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 23:36:05 GMT
We had a discussion about it a while back, so I'll just copy and add to what I said then: Dredd '95 is bad but not as bad as some think or it's reputation suggested for a long while. It's big trouble is that it only pays lip service to the character of Judge Dredd and the comics. It really isn't "Joe Dredd" at all. Not just the helmet thing but the tone, the relationships, the lack of social commentary. Oddly though for a movie that clearly doesn't understand the property they're making it's full of references to great Dredd epics like The Cursed Earth, The Day The Law Died, Dredd Angel and others. It knows the source...it just doesn't understand it. Why kill off The Angels after 10 minutes? As a Stallone-actioner It's not the worst. Adaptations don't need to be reverential to the source but if you're not even going to try and make something akin to the originals....why not just do an original film about cloning and cops in the future? It's not as though the brand was lucrative enough that just being called Dredd would have been a guarantor of box office. Hell, It may as well be Demolition Man 2. Danny Cannon was a legit 2000AD reader, he'd had fan art published in early megs, but he was bulldozed by Stallone and the studio. Interestingly the creator of Dredd, John Wagner, has always said Stallone was the perfect casting choice. Most times after the years tumble, we get "Well, so and so wasn't right..." for these expensive flop geeky projects but Wagner defends Stallone to this day which is pretty cool. I doubt he defends Rob Schneider but hey.  I also think Alan Silvestri's score was really good. The 2012 one was not harmed by this film though, at least no more than Nolan was hamstrung by Joel Schumacher or Logan by X-Men Origins. The target market for genre films either are used to reboots or haven't seen the first one. In the wider scheme Judge Dredd is quite a forgotten film. What killed Dredd's box office was terrible US promotion and a lack of 2D screenings. It did very well in the UK, though, being one of the only 18 rated Number 1's in years. What it did hurt was 2000AD itself - they lost readers almost straight away and took a few years to recover. Suddenly their flagship was a pop culture joke. |
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Jun 24, 2017 2:35:48 GMT
We had a discussion about it a while back, so I'll just copy and add to what I said then: Dredd '95 is bad but not as bad as some think or it's reputation suggested for a long while. It's big trouble is that it only pays lip service to the character of Judge Dredd and the comics. It really isn't "Joe Dredd" at all. Not just the helmet thing but the tone, the relationships, the lack of social commentary. Oddly though for a movie that clearly doesn't understand the property they're making it's full of references to great Dredd epics like The Cursed Earth, The Day The Law Died, Dredd Angel and others. It knows the source...it just doesn't understand it. Why kill off The Angels after 10 minutes? As a Stallone-actioner It's not the worst. Adaptations don't need to be reverential to the source but if you're not even going to try and make something akin to the originals....why not just do an original film about cloning and cops in the future? It's not as though the brand was lucrative enough that just being called Dredd would have been a guarantor of box office. Hell, It may as well be Demolition Man 2. Danny Cannon was a legit 2000AD reader, he'd had fan art published in early megs, but he was bulldozed by Stallone and the studio. Interestingly the creator of Dredd, John Wagner, has always said Stallone was the perfect casting choice. Most times after the years tumble, we get "Well, so and so wasn't right..." for these expensive flop geeky projects but Wagner defends Stallone to this day which is pretty cool. I doubt he defends Rob Schneider but hey. I also think Alan Silvestri's score was really good. The 2012 one was not harmed by this film though, at least no more than Nolan was hamstrung by Joel Schumacher or Logan by X-Men Origins. The target market for genre films either are used to reboots or haven't seen the first one. In the wider scheme Judge Dredd is quite a forgotten film. What killed Dredd's box office was terrible US promotion and a lack of 2D screenings. It did very well in the UK, though, being one of the only 18 rated Number 1's in years. What it did hurt was 2000AD itself - they lost readers almost straight away and took a few years to recover. Suddenly their flagship was a pop culture joke. Pretty accurate comment, Davy. They really didn't understand the source, they just liked bits from it, which is why we get a scene with the Angels, and Mean looked great, excellent early work by Chris Cunningham nee Halls, and so did the ABC warrior, but also a wasted item. And why not cast Stallone in BOTH roles? Then he gets to both leave the helmet on AND take it off? And I still love Diane Lane as Hershey. (Mind you I fell for her after seeing her in Streets of Fire!) Dredd used almost all of its 45 million budget on the film itself, leaving literally damn all for publicity and advertising, and it is also one of the few 3D movies worth seeing in that format. I think you need to talk to some of our American friends more though on how the earlier film affected the 2012 one, most of the guys I know who weren't already 2000 AD fans had the problem of thinking it WAS a remake of the 95 film. The 95 film hurt 2000 AD, but so did a lot of the choices made by Egmont Fleetway then, it wasn't the film alone that caused those problems. Have you watched the documentary Futureshock? |
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677 
|
Post by shutupbanks on Jun 24, 2017 4:44:26 GMT
I don't mind the film as a dumb SF action movie, but I don't like what it does to Dredd. I can cope with the helmet being removed and the dilution of some elements of the setting - hell, I even like Stallone - but the movie as a whole feels like it's paying lip service to the source material and is just putting out a "jollied-up" version of the character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Jun 24, 2017 8:14:56 GMT
As most of you know Sly is my favourite action hero but i can't praise this toxic turd, the tone & humours all wrong, Dredd removing his helmet ridiculous & the ending is very badly edited as the removed Dredds battle against the clone Judges & the fight with Rico is awful.
Give me Karl Urbans Dredd over this one anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Jun 24, 2017 15:22:19 GMT
Its an enjoyable film, if you take it as is. Armand Assante is over the top but brilliant. Just a shame bits were cut. Such as the clone fight at the end
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 12:38:45 GMT
Despite the fx having dated badly the sets are really good, the Angel Gang look great, there are a couple good set pieces (Fargo taking the Long Walk) but its just got very little to do with the source material. Rob Schneider is terrible, Stallone doesn't understand the character & its all just a generic action movie.
|
|
I also think Alan Silvestri's score was really good. 
