Loki Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The problem with the original Dredd film wasn't that Dredd took off his helmet, it's that it was a dreadful film with a shit script and a 3rd rate director. If he'd have taken off his helmet and revealed Clint Eastwood and the film had been Unforgiven set in a nuclear wasteland, I'd have loved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted February 7, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2012 Yeah, I'm a huge Dredd fan, and I couldn't give a fuck that Sly took his helmet off in the movie. I care that it was a bag of shite, and monkeyed with much more important stuff. Wrong storyline to use, as well, and fucked up, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted February 7, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'm sure there were very, very few people that went to see Judge Dredd because they got to see Sly's ugly face or because Rob Schneider was in it. Judge Dredd is a cop who wears a helmet, it added nothing having them take it off.  Does the whole Star Power and Box Office appeal thing completely pass you by or what?  I'd never heard of Chris Hemsworth before I saw Thor, I saw it because it was a Thor film I think most people were the same. Also nearly everyone thinks Judge Dredd was shit for many reasons, I'd understand your arguments if it was good or successful on any level.  Sin City was done to look exactly like the comic and it worked well, if they had done it like a regular film and I complained that it should've been black and white and stylized would you argue against me?  But a lot of comics, especially superhero comics, are utter shit. And a lot of the fans of them are retards with no care for actual quality, they just want to see their hobby faithfully recreated on the screen  Yawn.  The problem with the original Dredd film wasn't that Dredd took off his helmet, it's that it was a dreadful film with a shit script and a 3rd rate director. If he'd have taken off his helmet and revealed Clint Eastwood and the film had been Unforgiven set in a nuclear wasteland, I'd have loved it. I completely agree, that would've been cool and a far cry from what we got, it would've been even better if it was like that with the helmet permanently on.  All I said was after being sure to make a good film, they might as well make it as similar to the source material as possible, most stuff in comics isn't massively off-putting to mainstream fans, I don't see how this viewpoint could annoy people so much.  Does anyone really think Galactus was better as a cloud in the Fantastic 4 sequel to being a 50 foot tall pharaoh? If done right most things can work in a film, it's just lazy to not even give the audience the benefit of the doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members chokeout Posted February 7, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2012 The problem with the original Dredd film wasn't that Dredd took off his helmet, it's that it was a dreadful film with a shit script and a 3rd rate director. If he'd have taken off his helmet and revealed Clint Eastwood and the film had been Unforgiven set in a nuclear wasteland, I'd have loved it. Â I actually felt sorry for Danny Cannon. By all accounts he was a massive fan of 2000AD and was getting a lot of hype going into the film and was just railroaded by the studio into constant changes. Would have loved to have seen a decent behind the scenes doc (Like Alien3) on the making of a film like this. Obviously its turned out that he is in fact a shit director since then but still.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'd never heard of Chris Hemsworth before I saw Thor, I saw it because it was a Thor film I think most people were the same. Also nearly everyone thinks Judge Dredd was shit for many reasons, I'd understand your arguments if it was good or successful on any level.  I see, you mean the Thor which was directed by Kenneth Branagh and starred Anthony Hopkins, and Natalie Portman and was already announced as being a prelude to The Avengers film(that would star Robert Downey Jr, Scarlett Johannson, Samuel L Jackson et al) That film with no other star power? Its a very, erm naive to assume that 'Everybody' is going because its about a comic book character. If you were to see the poster for Thor you would have very little idea it was a comic book adaptation unless you knew it was a comic previously, as the marketing is playing up to its well known Norse Mythology thing rather than its comic book nature, Marvel and from the studios that bought you Iron Man, barely feature, but why let that mess up your discussion that 'everyone' knew it was a comic book movie and was going to watch it purely as thus   Even makes no reference to it being a 'comic book' movie, its marketed as a pure action/sci fi film. Marvel have done well out of moving out of highlighting the comic book aspect of their films in recent times, playing on the action nature of the films, in built mythologies ( The Thor myth has been around for at least 1,000 years) rather than going into full geek mode to make it more mass marketable and increase their profitablity. If that comes with a reimagining of the source material, or things that dont fit to fanboy wankery exactly. Im sure they wont be losing much sleep over it as the dollar signs will make more, whilst the comic book readers will always have their comics to fall back to  I've never said that Judge Dredd was the best film, I said it was a decent actioner, no more no less, and if its on telly I will usually give it a whirl. The film made profit, anywhere from 20 mill to 70 mill, depending on what sources you read so its hardly like its a box office flop either.  The point is, that it isnt all about being 'true' to the source material for stuff and hasnt been for a long time. I was going to go into to how Last of the Mohicans, a top film as a further example as it is actually really not much like the book, to supplement that discussion but in the end I couldnt be arsed, because unless you get out of they are doing this for 'me (the fans of the comic)' specifically mindset for films costing hundreds of millions of dollars, you may well end up very dissapointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamtheman Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) Possible no muppets performance at the oscars  The live performances of the nominated original songs may be done away with (despite their being only two of them). apparantly though this may have only been leaked to influence the creative direction of the show so we might get Jason Segel and Walter yet  "The Wolverine" release date set  July 26th 2013 for the Origins: Sequel (for now)  Russel Crowe for "Death Wish"?  this new adaptaion will be based on the original novel Edited February 7, 2012 by iamtheman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted February 7, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum in that I saw Thor and neither the goofy character or cast appealed to me at all. I've still yet to give it a second look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted February 7, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 7, 2012 Good for you TripleA, I saw Thor for the 4th time the other night and I love it. Â Â Patdfb you made a good, well presented argument, I still maintain there's no reason making a film that's true to the source material should alienate mainstream fans though. And I'm sure people all know Thor, Captain America and Iron Man are based on comics even if it doesn't say "based on a comic" in the trailer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) I still maintain there's no reason making a film that's true to the source material should alienate mainstream fans though. Depends on the source material. If it's got stupid bollocks in it that is going to put off everyone except overgrown div kids, then it is obvious that it should be changed. Quality and/or mass audience appeal is far more important than placating mongoloids who just want to see extremely-familiar shapes projected in front of them. Â Besides, the sort of people who put "carbon copy of source material" as the top priority in an adaptation purely for its own sake are mentally deficient bell-ends and deviants, and deserve to be antagonised until they either sort themselves out or drown -- either on the piss they fetishise or the tears they are crying over Evil Hollywood raping their childhoods. So making changes when adapting something works on two levels. Edited February 8, 2012 by King Pitcos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Honestly, I had no idea that Thor was based on a comic, given how he is a well known mythical figure and all that. However, I did enjoy the old Incredible Hulk movie where Thor turned up, had no idea it was comic book based though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted February 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted February 8, 2012 I still maintain there's no reason making a film that's true to the source material should alienate mainstream fans though. Depends on the source material. If it's got stupid bollocks in it that is going to put off everyone except overgrown div kids, then it is obvious that it should be changed. Quality and/or mass audience appeal is far more important than placating mongoloids who just want to see extremely-familiar shapes projected in front of them. Â Besides, the sort of people who put "carbon copy of source material" as the top priority in an adaptation purely for its own sake are mentally deficient bell-ends and deviants, and deserve to be antagonised until they either sort themselves out or drown -- either on the piss they fetishise or the tears they are crying over Evil Hollywood raping their childhoods. So making changes when adapting something works on two levels. Â Â Insulting a complete stranger by using the one thing you know about them with added "mentally deficient, mongoloid and div" thrown in for good measure, nice one fucking keyboard warrior. Â I never said anything about "evil Hollywood" raping my childhood, I love movies, that's why I enjoy seeing movies made of things I've previously liked in other formats. All I said was most changes from the source material are for the worse, have you seen Jonah Hex? As a comic it was just about a deformed bounty hunter having gritty realistic stories in the old west, but in the movie they gave him supernatural powers and had a big "saving the world from evil mastermind" storyline to make it more like a generic movie and it was shit. Â I never said The avengers should be all be wearing bright lycra to make it as identical to the comic as possible did I? Comics only sell 10000 issues a month and millions of people need to see a big budget movie for it to be a hit but if people are going to see a movie about a superhuman crime fighter I think they're willing to be shown fun stuff from comics they might not get in other movies like James Bond, Bourne Identity etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Honestly, I had no idea that Thor was based on a comic, given how he is a well known mythical figure and all that. However, I did enjoy the old Incredible Hulk movie where Thor turned up, had no idea it was comic book based though. I think it's clear it's a comic-book or cartoon movie from how Stringer Bell's hiding in the back of the poster dressed up as a Transformer for Halloween. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamtheman Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited)  Trailer  There was never just one  looks ok. intersting with finney and allen being there Edited February 8, 2012 by iamtheman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamtheman Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Billy Connolly cast in "The Hobbit"  will play Dain Ironfoot. the staunchest and toughest of the dwarves. not expected to appear till part 2  New Blade Runner: Sequel or Prequel?  well ridley's not sure himself yet. plus whether he'd like harrison ford in it and he's already thinking of something else  If you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra1000 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Billy Connolly cast in "The Hobbit" will play Dain Ironfoot. the staunchest and toughest of the dwarves. not expected to appear till part 2  New Blade Runner: Sequel or Prequel?  well ridley's not sure himself yet. plus whether he'd like harrison ford in it and he's already thinking of something else  If you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.