OK, since apparently it's IMPOSSIBLE to think one version of a movie is better than another, in this Vs thread let us compare and discuss what Stallone and Urban did respectively in their movies and how you feel they turned out, which aspects you felt were the better representations of Dredd, Mega City One, the Judges, Lawmasters, Lawgivers, etc.
I'm going to start it off, interestingly enough with Stallone's take on his movie, which is from 2008 and rather insightful.
Sylvester Stalone wrote:I loved that property when I read it, because it took a genre that I love, what you could term the 'action morality film' and made it a bit more sophisticated. It had political overtones. It showed how if we don't curb the way we run our judicial system, the police may end up running our lives. It dealt with archaic governments; it dealt with cloning and all kinds of things that could happen in the future. It was also bigger than any film I've done in its physical stature and the way it was designed. All the people were dwarfed by the system and the architecture; it shows how insignificant human beings could be in the future. There's a lot of action in the movie and some great acting, too. It just wasn't balls to the wall. But I do look back on Judge Dredd as a real missed opportunity. It seemed that lots of fans had a problem with Dredd removing his helmet, because he never does in the comic books. But for me it is more about wasting such great potential there was in that idea; just think of all the opportunities there were to do interesting stuff with the Cursed Earth scenes. It didn't live up to what it could have been. It probably should have been much more comic, really humorous, and fun. What I learned out of that experience was that we shouldn't have tried to make it Hamlet; it's more Hamlet and Eggs...
What say you?
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Using my mathematical formula for film quality called the Assante Index (TM), I've determined that because the older Dredd has more Armand Assante than the new one, it is the better film.
I think that the script in the new one doesn't aim as high, and as a result doesn't have to fall as far. The older one tries to do an epic story wherein we see a lot of a very sci-fi looking Mega City One society, from the high courts, Cursed Earth, and so on. It aims really high, but doesn't quite get there. On the other hand, the new one plays it far safer, essentially being The Raid. I can't fault the old one for aiming as high as it did, nor the new one for playing it so safe.
For me, they're both really pizza night films. The older one is more fun, silly and rewatchable.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist
"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
I kind of liked the newer one because it is in more in-line with the comic books: it tells you just how absolutely shitty spot the Judges are in and is more true to Dread's character.
Gandalf does have a point though about the older movie exploring and showing more stuff from the comic.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
I liked the '95 version better. Both were good movies but the '95 version was more fun to watch. I think the comedy aspects helped keep it from being too dark and gritty, but we still got the idea of just how bad the future was overall. And as an aside, I didn't mind Dredd removing his helmet. He was still a badass without it.
Quick Havok give me a mathematical formula to satisfy your rantings with and fill in the values for me since you've oh so obviously stacked the deck as if you're a faux news reporter in this thread. Might as well get my damn answer from you as well!
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Worthwhile question since I started that shitfest about equal opinion in the Batman thread and your very first sentence in this thread is pretty damn vitriolic. So quick. Mathematical formula so I don't accidentally piss you off even more than you already are.
You don't piss me off, I just think you are an idiot. You gonna actually address the OP or are you just going to have another "I won't and you can't make me!" tantrum?
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Gaidin, Havok, this thread is now being watched. Bringing a gripe from another thread is called a Vendetta, and is Frowned Upon. Do not make me do more than watch.
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
It's difficult for me to pick one. I agree with Bedlam: I think the 2012 Dredd has a better Dredd, while the 1995 movie shows the world a bit better. Max von Sydow alone made the 1995 movie for me, and we got to see a lot more of Mega-City One. That said, I think the newer one edges out the older one, simply because it DOES portray Dredd in a more comic-accurate way. Stallone wasn't horrible in the role, but I think he put too much effort into trying to make Dredd seem human and relatable, when Dredd should be the furthest thing from human and relatable. That's not a patch on Stallone- he did pretty well with the material he had. I just think Urban did better, had a better script, and a better understanding of the character.
By the way, Hav-- good call on the Anthrax option. Also, one of my gaming buddies used to joke that the Stallone version should have had an additional scene. When Hershey kisses him at the end, he should have looked at her as he put his helmet on and said something to the effect of, "Conduct unbecoming a Judge. Iso-cubes, Hershey."
I don't like being a bastard, but they leave me no choice.
I feel that the 90s Dredd tried to do a lot, and largely failed. I do respect that they tried, the proverbial "A for effort," but ultimately a C- for execution. The film was not very memorable to me, and admittedly I haven't seen it in several years, but nothing really sticks apart from Sylvester Stallone being Sylvester Stallone. I don't think it was a bad film, per se, but it wasn't a particularly good one either. It's something to eat popcorn with and laugh at the 90s-ness of it all, rather than a film which succeeded at any particular artistic aspiration.
2012's Dredd, on the other hand, left me with my jaw on the floor. While the film has some flaws (which I'll get to in a bit), overall I felt like I'd just had the shit kicked out of me by the masterpiece I'd just witnessed. I saw it on Netflix and started watching it on a whim, expecting another amusing popcorn action flick following closely in the footsteps of its predecessor, but by the end of the introduction with Dredd's summary execution of the hostage-taker, I knew I was watching something much greater. I find it difficult to really articulate everything I love about this movie.
Karl Urban's performance. Ironic, perhaps, in the same way that one might be lauded for an excellent performance of a soulless robot (as Summer Glau and Garrett Dillahunt did in Sarah Connor Chronicles, for example). Urban really didn't have much to work with other than a grizzled voice and a perpetual scowl, but by god, he did it brilliantly. I respect the shit out of whoever involved maintained the decision to never have the lead protagonist's face shown or used in any way (other than the perpetual scowl). Forgive the artsy navel-gazing, but it was artistically brilliant.
Olivia Thirlby's hotness. Okay, cheekiness aside, Anderson played an important role in the film, as she is largely what allowed Dredd to be so (superficially) two-dimensional in the first place. She shows the "character," the emotional conflict and growth we normally expect of our protagonists but which Dredd shouldn't and didn't have. In many ways, Dredd and Anderson are one cohesive character in the film, and it's this dynamic which allows the film to get away with its ballsy, faceless, emotionless lead.
The grounded and reserved plot. This was refreshing and very well done. Rather than the world being blown up or galaxies being invaded, the entire film was essentially structured around the idea of Tuesday. The whole thing plays out like a "day in the life of..." vignette. There's no world-shattering superweapons or society-altering evil plots, just one Judge and a rookie cadet on patrol. But it never feels like it's just one day on patrol, it's never boring, and it feels like the stakes couldn't be higher. I love that the film invests us in what would otherwise be dismissed as a relatively mundane and un-heroic plot, without ever being mundane or un-heroic.
The stark brutality. I love it; I remember enjoying the same effect the first time I saw Air Force One. There's no pontificating or moralizing from our (questionable) heroes, just cold, brutal summary executions to the bad guys. The difference from other movies, however, is that Dredd never frames this as Action Hero gunning down swarms of Obviously Evil Goons; rather, it shows quite clearly that most of the people being killed are just poor sods hopelessly caught up in the larger conflict between anarchy and the oppressive application of the law. Our heroes are thus more anti-heroes, ruthlessly gunning down people who don't necessarily deserve it. Where I give the film credit is that the film doesn't insult our intelligence by moralizing to us over it. While it does show us the consequences of this (in one scene, Anderson executes a gunman, only to awkwardly encounter the now-dead man's wife a short while later), it never tediously weeps at the audience over how horrible this is; we know it's horrible, and the film knows we know it's horrible.
I could go on, praising the cinematography or the action or the deeper themes of the comic series, but even with just the above I think it's an extraordinarily fine film. Now, it does have some flaws, and I feel I should at least mention them.
There are some weaknesses in the plot. Ma-ma's last stand is just weird and poorly conceived. Our heroes 'win' because it's arbitrarily stated that Ma-ma's bomb won't work if she falls down a skyscraper first; it's cheap, not to mention that the bomb on a deadman's switch is stupid in the first place. The corrupt Judges are also poorly conceived, just sort of showing up to present a new and different threat to Dredd that really doesn't add anything to the film: As a standalone, the film never explores the concept of corruption within the Judges or the wider meaning of such a thing. Their appearance is arbitrary and only serves to cast the loyal Judges as inept or incompetent (the Judge who responds to Dredd's distress call spends the entire film sitting around with his dick in his hand, only to be shown up by the corrupt Judge squad).
The minigun scene was gratuitous and silly, existing only for the sake of being an action scene. While it is internally believable that Ma-ma really is psychotic enough to annihilate an entire residential block, there is no rhyme or reason for this and thus just falls into the classic trap of being Chaotic Stupid - a stark contrast to Ma-ma's characterization as an otherwise very intelligent and pragmatic villain, who ordered Anderson promptly executed with no bullshit.
Really, though, none of that detracts from the overall impact of the film. It's an under-appreciated masterpiece on par with Event Horizon. It goes without saying that I consider Dredd a superior film to the Stallone Judge Dredd, the latter of which was exceptional only for its effort to bring a virtually unknown British comic series to life.
Agitated asshole | (Ex)40K Nut | Metalhead The vision never dies; life's a never-ending wheel
1337 posts as of 16:34 GMT-7 June 2nd, 2003
"'He or she' is an agenderphobic microaggression, Sharon. You are a bigot." ― Randy Marsh
Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:Ma-ma's last stand is just weird and poorly conceived. Our heroes 'win' because it's arbitrarily stated that Ma-ma's bomb won't work if she falls down a skyscraper first; it's cheap, not to mention that the bomb on a deadman's switch is stupid in the first place.
Ma-Ma's bomb didn't detonate because it worked with a fail-safe rather than a fail-deadly mechanism, in that it needed a signal to detonate and not the constant presence of a signal to not detonate. That does make sense - if you're using a bomb to protect your life through MAD doctrine, you don't want it to blow you up while you're still alive, whether that's because the batteries went flat, the techie's room acts as a Faraday cage or because the bomb starts asking for the "don't blow up" signal before you turn on the jewelry. If it fails to blow up after you're dead it doesn't matter, because the bomb has already failed in its intended purpose because you're dead. From Ma-Ma's perspective the optimal strategy is to have Dredd believe it's fail-deadly mechanism, but actually using a fail-deadly mechanism doesn't help her do that.
That doesn't make the writing of the situation any less contrived. It plays out like 7-year-olds playing cops and robbers.
"I got you!"
"Nuh-uh. I have a gun now!"
"Yeah-huh, I have a bulletproof vest now! Your gun doesn't work!"
The bomb is introduced and then hand-waved away 10 seconds later with no consequence or purpose other than to artificially add some tension to an otherwise anti-climactic (but very appropriate and poetic) showdown. The exact same showdown with the same results could have been done without the presence of a bomb.
Agitated asshole | (Ex)40K Nut | Metalhead The vision never dies; life's a never-ending wheel
1337 posts as of 16:34 GMT-7 June 2nd, 2003
"'He or she' is an agenderphobic microaggression, Sharon. You are a bigot." ― Randy Marsh
I never read the comics, but for me the 2012 verion is better. As other's have said, it's not that Stallone's version was bad, it's just that I wanted to see a film about the future-super-cops and STallone's version was a hero who is unjustly thrown from grace. That's not a bad story, and it was well-enough executed that I've watched it several times, but the 2012 version is closer to what I initially expected, based on what I'd heard of the comics.
Then again, Stallone's version did do, IMHO, a better job of showing Mega-City One in all it's opressive glory. It really did feel like a place where millions of people are crammed in close together: the buildings, for instance, were huge and tight-packed, whereas the mega-blocks in the 2012 film were widely-spaced enough to lose that oppressive feeling.
As someone upthread put it, the 2012 film feels like a day in the life of Dredd. Or, as TVTropes said, for Anderson it was a harrowing rite of passage that will change her forever, but for Dredd, it was Tuesday.
So: the 2012 version takes it on characterization, action scenes (seriously, watch those slow-motion gunfights and tell me they aren't cool, especially as the slowmo is actually justified in-story) and general "feel," whilst STallone's version takes it on look and atmosphere of the city.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."
Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
To mostly echo what other's have said, I prefer the 2012 Dredd. It was tighter in focus and the characters felt more nuanced. It was far less fantastic then the Stallone Dredd which is both a good and bad thing considering Dredd despite its rather bleak existence is rather fantastical. Could you really see a group of intelligent monkey gangsters or fat rights activists in Dredd?
Stallone's Dredd was a major example of this. In the movie he is a catch phrase bellowing good guy standing around while bullets rain around him. He is bright in color both in attitude and dress, looking every bit the part of a sci-fi action hero. Urban's is more grounded, his catch phrase isn't just him saying shit to sound cheeky or cute, he uses cover, and his uniform is dark in color and looks like something you might expect armored motorcycle cops to wear.
And he isn't really all that heroic. Even in the comics when he is trying to be sacrificed by a cult he comes right out and says he isn't a good guy. He is guy doing his job in a hostile environment and that jobs involves executing people on the spot and being a bit of an asshole. He's not without mercy, like towards that moron homeless guy and stunning the kids rather then shooting them, but mostly he is pretty cold. Anderson is really the more heroic and human of the two but thats how its supposed to be. Even for Judges who've spent most of the their lives in dehumanizing training, Dredd is considering pretty inhuman.
The movies themselves, the Urban Dredd wins for multiple reasons. First and foremost no goddamn Rob Schneider. He is like the Neelix of that movie, really annoying and adds nothing to the plot or story beyond an anchor weighing it down. Rob Schneider is annoying (rated PG-13). I think he was meant as the "viewpoint" character for the audience to relate to like Anderson was in the newer movie but he just didn't work same as he didn't work for his other role of comic relief.
2nd, costumes and weapons. As I mentioned above the 2012 Dredd Judge costumes look more realistic. They actually look like they might protect against bullets and shrapnel in combat and wind and pavement while riding. The Judge Dredd Judge costumes look closer to their comic book counterparts but also look ungainly as fuck and don't look like they would stop a .22 or rug burn. The weapons in the newer movie seemed more realistic too. Looked like mostly lightly dressed up South African Vector AK clones and other real weapons with light cosmetic touches. The only real future guns are the guns of the Judges and maybe the oversized miniguns. Compare that to the massive future looking guns used by everyone in the 95 movie. Some like the Judge Hunter rifles that seemed almost as tall as them and the guns used by the stormtrooper prison guards with 4 barrels.
Also of note in the 2012 movie is the actors, both playing criminals and Judges, trigger discipline. Doesn't take away from enjoyment of the movie but is something I appreciate from a safety standpoint alone and certainly enjoy seeing it from what are supposed to be trained individuals.
3rd, 2012 Dredd didn't conform to action movie tropes. Dredd and Anderson when trapped didn't try to bum-rush the main baddie but tried to find shelter. They didn't rush any large group of armed people gun blazing, used gas and flashbangs to clear them out. Bad guys are smart enough to know not to declare the good guys dead until they confirm it. Rather then the expected boss battle against the bad guy lieutenant Dredd just chucks him off a balcony. No infinite ammo, was actually a plot point about their limited pool of ammunition. No expected girl fight despite it being set up for one. The plucky sidekick actually saved herself and the gruff hero. No big speeches or boss battle against the main baddie, the baddie says some shit, gets shot, and chucked out a window. Also wasn't afraid to show a male blowing away a lady. No love story, Anderson and Dredd are partners, not lovers.
Final thoughts, while the 1995 Dredd is a great movie, its a more of a campy but fun forgettable popcorn flick. It doesn't really have that Dredd feel either even if it mostly got the look. It might have worked better if it hadn't been a Dredd movie but called the Adventures of Cosmic Constable Carl. It was a Stallone with a Dredd paintjob with all the Stallone action movie tropes. The 2012 movie was a true Dredd movie, with Urban not playing Karl Urban in a Dredd costume but being Dredd himself (dat scowl).
Joun_Lord wrote:3rd, 2012 Dredd didn't conform to action movie tropes. Dredd and Anderson when trapped didn't try to bum-rush the main baddie but tried to find shelter. They didn't rush any large group of armed people gun blazing, used gas and flashbangs to clear them out. Bad guys are smart enough to know not to declare the good guys dead until they confirm it. Rather then the expected boss battle against the bad guy lieutenant Dredd just chucks him off a balcony. No infinite ammo, was actually a plot point about their limited pool of ammunition. No expected girl fight despite it being set up for one. The plucky sidekick actually saved herself and the gruff hero. No big speeches or boss battle against the main baddie, the baddie says some shit, gets shot, and chucked out a window. Also wasn't afraid to show a male blowing away a lady. No love story, Anderson and Dredd are partners, not lovers.
I wasn't going to reply to this thread initially since I've only ever seen the old movie. But I have to reply to this. The part I quoted is just literally you going through a list of things I like to see in a movie and saying "Nope! None of that! None of that either! Definitively none of that!" It's uncanny.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
The armour is something that always bugged me about the Stallone film. It's called "body armour" but from the demonstration it was glorified shoulder pads, not armour.
Plus the absurd weapons in that film. The lawgiver is a 20mm sidearm with a 25 round (or is it 25mm and 20 rounds, can't recall) magazine? Yeah, right. Those jumped-up shotguns the thugs are carrying? 20mm caseless ammo with an effective lethal range of just 200m. Suuure.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."
Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
Joun_Lord wrote:3rd, 2012 Dredd didn't conform to action movie tropes. Dredd and Anderson when trapped didn't try to bum-rush the main baddie but tried to find shelter. They didn't rush any large group of armed people gun blazing, used gas and flashbangs to clear them out. Bad guys are smart enough to know not to declare the good guys dead until they confirm it. Rather then the expected boss battle against the bad guy lieutenant Dredd just chucks him off a balcony. No infinite ammo, was actually a plot point about their limited pool of ammunition. No expected girl fight despite it being set up for one. The plucky sidekick actually saved herself and the gruff hero. No big speeches or boss battle against the main baddie, the baddie says some shit, gets shot, and chucked out a window. Also wasn't afraid to show a male blowing away a lady. No love story, Anderson and Dredd are partners, not lovers.
I wasn't going to reply to this thread initially since I've only ever seen the old movie. But I have to reply to this. The part I quoted is just literally you going through a list of things I like to see in a movie and saying "Nope! None of that! None of that either! Definitively none of that!" It's uncanny.
I may be misreading you but are you actually saying you like infinite ammo, designated lady fights, moron bad guys, and invincible heroes who bum rush enemies rather then using tactics or cover?
Technically the Stallone one didn't have infinite ammo (the Lawgiver running out of at least one sort of bullets was something of an important plot point you know) and while I agree the 2012 one is more realistic AND closer to the source material, the Stallone one was more fun.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
Whenever I hear someone bring up the 1995 it is almost always the direct reference to Stallone 'I am the Law' - Which is a perfect example of how badly that film took the premise into just being Stallone one-liner with little substance. From the little things like not taking the helmet off and Urban managing to pull off nuance just with his jaw or the scene where he patches himself up with no fuss.
I like the 2012 version more as it was less about the politics of Mega City One, and more about well, being a Judge in mega city one.
Judge Dredd (1995) was a Sci-Fi movie with Police as the main characters involved in politics.
Dredd (2012) was a Cop movie with Sci-Fi elements.
Now, that being said, I think they would work together wonderfully as part of a larger movie series if they'd been filmed in reverse order from what they were. First movie is 'Dredd', which serves to introduce us to what Dredd's life is like. Then have another movie or two that expands on things, and maybe makes the city look more high tech as we see more of the city. (i.e Peach Trees really is in the getto area). The final movie of the series we see behind the Halls of Justice, and we get the 1995 Judge Dredd movie.
Along the way, you could have Dredd (say in the second movie) get assigned to a newer Lawmaster bike, and him go. "Having a Bike that could fly would have been useful in Peach Trees". Third movie: "Laser Cannons? What's wrong with bullets?"
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
Joun_Lord wrote:I may be misreading you but are you actually saying you like infinite ammo, designated lady fights, moron bad guys, and invincible heroes who bum rush enemies rather then using tactics or cover?
Yes. I prefer to have the plot revolve around the characters and not around how much ammo they have. And modern video games have more or less over saturated me with the whole realistic cover thing. But that might be temporary.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Joun_Lord wrote:I may be misreading you but are you actually saying you like infinite ammo, designated lady fights, moron bad guys, and invincible heroes who bum rush enemies rather then using tactics or cover?
Yes. I prefer to have the plot revolve around the characters and not around how much ammo they have. And modern video games have more or less over saturated me with the whole realistic cover thing. But that might be temporary.
Pray tell, how did the finite ammo and the use of cover in Dredd prevent character development and retard the action scenes? How would a staged lady fight have helped rookie Anderson develop within the context of the movie? How would a stupid bad guy have improved the story?
As it was Dredd was already a great action flick with plenty of violent scenes, a good amount of gore, a few nice lines here and there, and an atmosphere that fit the comics the movie was based on. How would following your suggestions have made it a more enjoyable movie?
Jub wrote:As it was Dredd was already a great action flick with plenty of violent scenes, a good amount of gore, a few nice lines here and there, and an atmosphere that fit the comics the movie was based on. How would following your suggestions have made it a more enjoyable movie?
I believe any honest answer would go along the lines of "Less thinking needed".
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
