Jump to content

DVDs and Films You Have Watched Recently 3 - The Final Insult


Devon Malcolm

Recommended Posts

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.

Yeah, but just saying that "it's not an element that is so easily messed with" is just another "they're not allowed to ever take his helmet off because it's in the comic and I like the comic and I say so." I think that's Devon's point. Of course, it's all just a matter of how much one enjoys certain things. I think a lot of people have enjoyed the Dredd film, whether they were a fan of the comic or not. Someone (I think Steve Big Jobs?) talked about the lack of development/variation being vital to that character. Someone else talked about how it doesn't necessarily translate to film because it can make a character a bit boring or unengaging to not develop beyond a grimace under a helmet for a full film. But some people don't mind that at all, and even prefer it that way.

 

Gladstone is right -- a film adaptation should never be bound by fanboy gnashing of teeth about deviations from the source material. It shouldn't make changes for the sake of it, nor should it avoid changes for the sake of it. If a film's shit, it should be judged as such by its own terms, not because Frodo never got that nasty with Sam in the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
I'm ashamed to say I've not seen the sequels, I was blown away by how good Dirty Harry was when I watched it ten years ago I thought there's no way the sequels could live up to it, how are they?

 

They're nowhere near as good, obviously. I think they are correct in not trying to be as serious as Dirty Harry because you are not going to emulate a film of that quality.

 

That said, Magnum Force is REALLY good. As a standalone crime thriller it really is excellent with a cracking plot and a great cast. Sudden Impact is alright and The Enforcer is crap and he gets a comedy dog in that called Meathead. Which is actually quite funny now that I type it out. The Dead Pool is a good laugh and it has the best car chase ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Gladstone is right -- a film adaptation should never be bound by fanboy gnashing of teeth about deviations from the source material.

 

So it's impossible for a fan of the source material to make a statement in a discussion like this then? If I say any particular change is a bad idea then I'm a gnashing fanboy getting butthurt and crying about having my childhood raped? Because I've tried to say I'm not like that, I welcome changes to make things work better as a film, they're two different formats, but no one has given a reason why it would be necessary to remove Dredd's helmet to make a film. The only reason I can imagine is to bring more humanity, emotion and development to the character but once he has no helmet and has developed as a character he's not really Judge Dredd anymore is he? The only Aspect of Judge Dredd's character is that he's a fascist super cop and if you don't represent him as that surely there's not much point adapting the property and you might as well save on the license and make your own film

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gladstone is right -- a film adaptation should never be bound by fanboy gnashing of teeth about deviations from the source material.

 

So it's impossible for a fan of the source material to make a statement in a discussion like this then? If I say any particular change is a bad idea then I'm a gnashing fanboy getting butthurt and crying about having my childhood raped?

You're a bad example for you to use, really, because you do get butthurt a lot about comic book adaptations changing things. I think you've explicitly stated before that you do judge them on faithfulness to the source material rather than on their own merits as films.

 

Because I've tried to say I'm not like that, I welcome changes to make things work better as a film, they're two different formats, but no one has given a reason why it would be necessary to remove Dredd's helmet to make a film. The only reason I can imagine is to bring more humanity, emotion and development to the character but once he has no helmet and has developed as a character he's not really Judge Dredd anymore is he? The only Aspect of Judge Dredd's character is that he's a fascist super cop and if you don't represent him as that surely there's not much point adapting the property and you might as well save on the license and make your own film

That bit in bold -- yes, that's the problem. That's where the fanboy/butthurt/childhood-rape element comes in. You won't accept a Judge Dredd character that's anything other than exactly what he is in the comics you like. If that version of Judge Dredd works in a film, great. For plenty of people, the Karl Urban version has worked a treat. If a version of Judge Dredd where he takes off his helmet and he's got cat eyes works in a film, great as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why people are getting so upset here, as far as I can tell we're all in total agreement. Nobody, not myself or Mr Jobs, is saying that you have to remain entirely faithful to the comic. Indeed, Dredd is good in part because it ISN'T too faithful.

 

However, in this particular instance keeping the helmet on made for a better film, and makes for a better character. Again, everybody seems to be in agreement on that.

 

I think if you want to rag on comic book fans, Dredd's helmet isn't the best example as there are in fact good, valid reasons for keeping it, as there are with superman's S logo or Batman's pointy ears. Without them, it really wouldn't be as good or as iconic a character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
I'm not getting into this discussion again

 

Have we had this argument before? I don't remember.

 

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.

 

Maybe I'm missing the point but why make a version of Judge Dredd where he takes off his helmet and has cat eyes? It's fine changing things if it improves the film (which is entirely subjective anyway) but what's the point otherwise? How do they know it won't work in a film? Stallone didn't take his helmet off to make it a better film, it was because it was the 90s and he's a big star and it was a really mainstream film, it was still a shit flop. Karl Urban kept his helmet on in a comparatively low key, darker film and it went down well. Why would a film where Judge Dredd is a guy with a face and emotions be better as a film than a film where Judge Dredd is cold with no face?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Why would a film where Judge Dredd is a guy with a face and emotions be better as a film than a film where Judge Dredd is cold with no face?

 

Are you saying that it's impossible that the former could be better than the latter? Because that's ludicrous. You absolutely cannot prove that.

 

I'll state this again. I am NOT saying that he should have taken off his helmet. If he had done in this to, I don't know, pick his fucking nose or something, it wouldn't have made any difference at all.

 

What I am saying is that to suggest that just because he has never taken it off in 2000 AD aside from that one time that Tuxedomoon refers to a few posts ago, that's no reason to not do it in films IF AS A FILMMAKER YOU BELIEVE THIS WILL MAKE YOUR FILM BETTER.

 

You're making a film. Make the best film you can. If it just so happens to be extremely faithful to the source material by default, fantastic! If you believe the source material in it has the tools to make a successful film without tweaking, awesome! All I'm saying is as someone who likes films but doesn't care for comic books is that if you really must have hundreds of thousands of these films every single week being released, don't make them just to pander to the Forbidden Planet mob. Because that's a stupid reason to make a film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you want to rag on comic book fans, Dredd's helmet isn't the best example as there are in fact good, valid reasons for keeping it, as there are with superman's S logo or Batman's pointy ears. Without them, it really wouldn't be as good or as iconic a character.

In most (all?) Batman and Superman films, we also see them without their pointy ears and S logos too, don't we?

 

Why would a film where Judge Dredd is a guy with a face and emotions be better as a film than a film where Judge Dredd is cold with no face?

Hooray for circular nonsense. Why would a film where Judge Dredd is cold with no face be better as a film than a film where Judge Dredd is a guy with a face and emotions?

 

I'm not pitching you a Judge Dredd film, and you'd immediately reject one that deviated from the comic even slightly anyway. You're of the unwaverable opinion that there can be no such thing as a good film where Judge Dredd takes his helmet off, purely because it would rape your childhood.

 

Edit: Or what the guy above said.

Edited by King Pitcos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Why would a film where Judge Dredd is a guy with a face and emotions be better as a film than a film where Judge Dredd is cold with no face?

 

Are you saying that it's impossible that the former could be better than the latter? Because that's ludicrous. You absolutely cannot prove that.

 

I'm definitely not saying that, I'm saying the default setting of Judge Dredd is for him to have a helmet on so to remove it you might as well have a reason and no one has said one other than filmmakers can do what they want to make a good film, fuck the forbidden planet mob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Why would a film where Judge Dredd is a guy with a face and emotions be better as a film than a film where Judge Dredd is cold with no face?

 

Are you saying that it's impossible that the former could be better than the latter? Because that's ludicrous. You absolutely cannot prove that.

 

I'm definitely not saying that, I'm saying the default setting of Judge Dredd is for him to have a helmet on so to remove it you might as well have a reason and no one has said one other than filmmakers can do what they want to make a good film, fuck the forbidden planet mob.

 

That has never been the argument that I'm putting forward, though. I'm not pushing theories as to why he should do it and under what circumstances. I'm not throwing plotlines out there. All I'm saying is that if Pete Travis came up with a reason to do it that would advance the film in some way or provide an interesting moment then he should do it. In fact, that is all I have been saying all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you want to rag on comic book fans, Dredd's helmet isn't the best example as there are in fact good, valid reasons for keeping it, as there are with superman's S logo or Batman's pointy ears. Without them, it really wouldn't be as good or as iconic a character.

In most (all?) Batman and Superman films, we also see them without their pointy ears and S logos too, don't we?

 

:laugh: don't be deliberately obtuse, you know what I'm saying. Dredd keeping on his helmet no matter what is as much of his signature look as Batman's pointy ears. And if you want to be REALLY geeky, we never see Batman without the ears, you're thinking of Bruce Wayne ;)

 

You and Gladders are both talking about a hypothetical rather than an actual. IF Dredd taking off his helmet made perfect narrative sense, then of course... do it! But it'd have to be an enormous payoff - the Stallone movie shows that just doing it because you want to see the star's face is not good enough. It's got nothing, in my mind at least, to do with comic book fanboys, it's entirely to do with the quality of the film you're making, the strength of its main characters and the future-proofing of a brand. Stallone killed Dredd dead for nearly 20 years, don't forget, as a film franchise.

 

Just watch Dredd and look at how the director uses the helmet to frame and shadow the face. That's all the reason you need right there, it looks fucking cool and adds to the mystique. Everything else is just arguing about hypotheticals.

 

 

I don’t think y'all even know who is arguing what point anymore.

 

It's got to that point, hasn't it, but don't you dare try moving on you butthurt fanboy.

Edited by Loki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...