Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted August 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 (edited) Have we had this argument before? I don't remember. Â Not you and I, I think it was with PITCOS (but I'm not 100% positive) it definitely happened and it was boring and went for ages. Â Â It's kind of like saying "How come Superman can fly" Gladders. It's an established part of the character. Â In the comics, yes. In the films, no. One does not have any have to have any reason to kowtow to the other. Â There aren't many characters who's identity is that you don't ever see their full face, for 35 years it's been an important part of Judge Dredd's aura. It may surprise you that I agree that films don't have to try to be identical to the comics, they're totally different formats but it's not like showing Judge Dredd's face improves the film, or that it's necessary for a film to show his face for any reason, if anything the fact that it doesn't is as good a gimmick for a film as it is a comic as it's something different. Also Judge Dredd is a robotic fascist with no emotion or personality, not seeing his eyes helps get that across, there's a barrier there that never goes. If a filmmaker or audience can't cope with a film where you don't see the hero's face then I think they need more imagination. Â You never saw V's face in V for Vendetta and it worked great. Edited August 28, 2013 by Steve 'Big' Jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 They're not scared of it though are they - they did it in the first film, it was shit and so the next director along decided to make a film closer to the original character. Â I don't see what your problem could be with that. If you don't give a crap about the mythology then you shouldn't care one way or the other. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were deliberately trying to pick a fight with comic book geeks. But This Ain't Marvel, George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted August 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 Dredd's face has NEVER been seen in the comics, so as soon as you do that, you're moving away from the mythology. Â No strictly true - in "Tales of the Dead Man", Dredd's face is in plain view. It's just conveniently burnt off. Â And I see both of your points - of course an adaptation doesn't have to kow-tow to its source, I have no problem with that. I'm a big fan of Superman, but I'm not some twat who wouldn't be open to seeing a movie where he was portrayed as wildly different in powers, appearance, etc. I also think that it's a weird way to go about using a property, though - there's a lot of things that make sense to change in Dredd's mythology, but the facelessness seems like a ridiculous thing to sacrifice if you're making a Judge Dredd movie. As a movie about Judge Dredd, Dredd fails far more than the Stallone version, but in maintaining that grim "I am the law" facade (as well as just being an eons better movie), it's a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 28, 2013 Author Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 They're not scared of it though are they - they did it in the first film, it was shit and so the next director along decided to make a film closer to the original character. I don't see what your problem could be with that. If you don't give a crap about the mythology then you shouldn't care one way or the other. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were deliberately trying to pick a fight with comic book geeks. But This Ain't Marvel, George.  That's fine if you want to think that but as I believe I've said plenty of times on here, it isn't just about comic books in general but adaptations on the whole. Filmmakers should make the best film that they can and if that means taking a crap on most of the source material they are using, they should totally do that. We all know what happened with The Shining and the subsequent TV mini-series they did of it.  I have a problem with adaptations that care more about appeasing fans of the comics/books/TV series/video games than they do about being good. I don't see what's wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Spot on Rosey. You keep what is vital to making a good film, and ditch the rest at will. Dredd plays very fast and loose with the backstory, setting and all that, but keeps the important aspects of the character and cashes in. It's one of the best comic book adaptations in a long while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted August 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 You watched Dredd yesterday Devon, do you think it would've been much better if you'd seen Karl Urban's face? Even if it wasn't based on anything I'd think that was an interesting choice to make for a lead character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 28, 2013 Author Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 You watched Dredd yesterday Devon, do you think it would've been much better if you'd seen Karl Urban's face? Even if it wasn't based on anything I'd think that was an interesting choice to make for a lead character. Â I don't think it would have made any difference to the film at all so there would be no reason to do it. That's not my point, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted August 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 You watched Dredd yesterday Devon, do you think it would've been much better if you'd seen Karl Urban's face? Even if it wasn't based on anything I'd think that was an interesting choice to make for a lead character. Â I don't think it would have made any difference to the film at all so there would be no reason to do it. That's not my point, though! Â What I get from this is that one day, a comic book adaptation pissed in Devon Gladstone's tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I'm glad you've come round to our way of thinking, Gladders. Let's move on. Â Nolan, eh? What a shitehawk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 28, 2013 Author Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 I'm glad you've come round to our way of thinking, Gladders. Â No I don't think I have but you're doing that infuriating thing of redirecting the discussion again so I guess we will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 (edited) You're not making your point very well then are you old chap? Â You're saying that a director shouldn't shy away from changing elements of a comic book if it betters the film - nobody disputes that. Â But in the specific instance of Dredd's helmet, we're saying that it's unlikely that would ever better the film as it's so fundamental to the look and character of Dredd, and given ample reason why. You asked "What's so bad about him taking off his helmet if it makes sense to the film?" and we've answered it by pointing out that it's not an element that is so easily messed with. Edited August 28, 2013 by Loki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Bifkin Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Helmet or no Helmet, it's still a bit dull. Not a patch on a Robocop or Dirty Harry. Â Maybe I should give the Stallone version a go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 28, 2013 Author Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 You're not making your point very well then are you old chap? Â If you've decided to tread the path of being patronising then you can fuck off. Did I make that point alright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted August 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 Helmet or no Helmet, it's still a bit dull. Not a patch on a Robocop or Dirty Harry. Â Those are two of the best films of all time Guy, hardly any films can stand up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 28, 2013 Author Paid Members Share Posted August 28, 2013 Helmet or no Helmet, it's still a bit dull. Not a patch on a Robocop or Dirty Harry. Â Those are two of the best films of all time Guy, hardly any films can stand up to them. Â I watched Dirty Harry again just a couple of weeks ago as part of rewatching all the Harry Callahan series. It's still an amazing film. I also think that they could make more films in that franchise. I'd like to see Clint Eastwood direct a prequel to Dirty Harry that would focus on the circumstances surrounding his rise through the ranks and what happened with his wife. No idea who could play a young Callahan, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts