DREDD 3D - Your thoughts?
I must admit that I'm a fan of the Stallone version of Judge Dredd, but after watching this trailer (despite the fact that it'll be presented in 3D) it looks quite good in the genre:
So far, I enjoyed Vantage Point from director Pete Travis and I also like Karl Urban's style. He's not an Oscar winning actor of course, but I think he'll do a quite good job for that one. What do you think?
DREDD 3D
Never saw the first/original one... but I'll probably check this out when the DVD hits the shelf.
The first one is some kind of guilty pleasure (provided you like Stallone) and it was quite a good movie when I was younger. It's now, more or less, a cult classic in it's genre (to me at least) so I'm excited to go watch this one too!Originally Posted by Daniel Rutter
Dystopic gratuitous violence isn't my genre - seeing the trailer, I've seen enough. 3D doesn't titillate anymore, either.
Just my 2 cents - you are free to disagree...
I liked the Stallone version for what it was, back in the day.... but Karl Urban IS Dredd!!!
The old one, was a Stallone movie that just happened to have a couple of characters with the same names as characters in 2000AD/Dredd comics, and that was about the only similarity. This new one looks like an actual Judge Dredd flick.
I get your point! But usually, these movies (specifically) I enjoy them because I can put my brain to rest while watching. It's nice to just watch movies like eating candies for the fun of it!Dystopic gratuitous violence isn't my genre - seeing the trailer, I've seen enough. 3D doesn't titillate anymore, either.
Just my 2 cents - you are free to disagree...
3D isn't titillating me neither, but if it's the only way to watch it before Blu-Ray, then I'll go.
Never saw the comics, but enjoyed the old version. This one seems a lot more dark and "serious". Karl Urban seems like a good choice so far!
I loved the designs of the first Dredd movie, they felt a lot closer to the comics than this new one. Clearly the screenplay for the nineties version was total nonsense.
This new one looks very 'meh' at the moment. I like the idea of making Megacity one into a kind of Shanghai style place, with all those minivans and freeways, but the actual production design shown in this trailer feels like one of those direct-to-video efforts, the sets look like plywood and the props... well those bikes look very poor and the 'District 9' stylings don't look to be very well executed.
The story clearly takes place in one block, so it will no doubt feel very constrained and basic unless the writing is there to pull it off. Die Hard was a classic, but this doesn't show the same level of finesse if the trailer is anything to go by. Of course the trailer for Die Hard made that look crap as well... so who knows??!
I'm not feeling it so far, and I should be interested in this because I was a massive 2000AD fan when I was a kid!
I only had one of each (Dredd and 2000AD) but from what I saw, Stallone never even came close to the actual character of Dredd. Plus alot of little things, like the helmet, which Dredd never EVER takes off, but was missing from Stallones head for... well pretty much the entire movie. It was an enjoyable movie, as a typical Stallone venture type of thing (KABOOM!!! BANG!!! SMASH!!! incomprehensible dialogue!!! BOOM!!!) but It wasn't really Dredd.
As far as 3D goes, it doesn't really bother me... If the trailers don't convince me its worth seeing in 3D, there's always the 2D screenings (not sure what its like everywhere else, but here our cinemas always screen a 2D version as well) so its not really that big a deal for me.
Wow!!! The first full-length feature to be shot on a hacked (Quantum B V9) GH2!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...hot_in_digital
I like the colour palette - lots of pastels and plenty of swathes of green. It looks pretty.
The action, setting, wardrobes, FX look good. I liked the original movie, don't care if this one is a big departure from that. It seems to stand on it's own.
I am kinda of tired of the "drugs are bad, mmmmkay" movies. It's been kind of old since Robocop 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoboCop_2
I get it. You need a conflict and drugs are an easy plot device for conflict, so this is going to be done over and over again.
It's also New Jack City, a classic. Same thing, penetrate the drug lords building:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jack_City
But, you're gonna need the characters and story to make it work. If you just have sci fi guns instead of regular guns and keep the action of New Jack City but ditch most of the story, it's gonna be boring.
Lately I'm skipping the 3d and going to the 2d movie. I like them much better.
I'm going to do that until directors lose their fear of being "gimmicky" and start using 3d like it was meant to be used, to throw stuff out of the screen and into our faces.
If you're just gonna make it a picture window, it's not worth wearing the glasses. Why aren't bullets flying in our faces? I don't want "realism" I want a fun movie experience.
Last edited by Gillvane; 2012 June 23rd at 09:16.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
The good ol' days.
Seems to be genre specific. Monster movies still do it, something like Piranha 3DD. Something like Avatar or Prometheus is not going to do it, I think for fear of being "gimmicky".
However, the new Spider Man movie looks like they might be comfortable enough to start really using the 3d and throw some webs in our faces. If so, I'll go see it in 3d.
Why on earth if you have 3 dimensions do you ONLY need to push the 3rd one into the movie screen? Why tie your hands like that?
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
I donned a pair of 3D glasses to view a TV - in less than optimal conditions - it was terrible. Totally awful. 3D can make for a fun 90mins at the cinema. Like you say, they need to relax and give us some 80's cheese.
3D - a temporary fad that reappears every 20-30 years or so...
True, but this time technology will allow it to be in the hands of ordinary people this go-round and perhaps that will be it's "3rd times a charm" mark to successful? Well have to wait and see. There are also the application of 3D gaming that may also boost it's popularity.
Anyway, as far as this movie goes I don't really see it a entertaining. For one, it has way too much gunfire and precious little substandard. In addition, you don't even get to see the main actors face (at least not in the trailer) and that kind of cloque and dagger is not what I find intriguing in a movie.
The special effect are fine, but you need substance to make them fit in and the feature more compelling. In the end, this Batman knock off and voice rasp just gets old after 5 minutes. I have to admit though, the Stallone version was tolerable even though I don't consider myself a fan. So I won't be adding either version to my movie collector's shelf any time soon.
Last edited by Krane; 2012 August 12th at 19:34.
Krane, you obviously don't know much about Judge Dredd. You never see his face in the comics. This new director made a distinct point about sticking to that in this movie. And also, it's about a fututistic police task force... complaining about too much gunfire in an action movie is just retarded.
You're right I don't know anything about Judge Dredd that's why I didn't chronicle his life. However, I do know about good cinema, and this is not it. It might interest you to know that in the movie business the point is to maximize profit, that means attracting all kinds of people whether they're a fan or not. You also don't seem to realize that constant gunfire is not a requirement for a good action film. Many do fine completely without it.
In addition, you should keep in mind that not every aspect of a comic strip is transferable to the big screen. Some parts work, some parts do not.
One more thing, in the future it may be best if you focus your attention to the thread and its subject matter and less attention towards me. I have a high tolerance but being bombarded with such constant immaturity and foolishness dialogue eventually wear thin even my patience.
Beside, trying to critique a critique which is obviously beyond your knowledge only reveals your innate limitations. In the future, ask more questions and give less commentary. At least until you advance a bit more. Eventually you will be able to make posts that don't sound childlike.
The worst part is you're not alone. You are only the third post in a row that has reminded me of my Middle school days. Its almost as if you're all drinking the same Kool-aid. Anyway, remember this is a forum, not a playground. You have to try and focus and sound mature if you're ever going to learn anything.
It looks like they have the potential for a great idea with the drug that slows time to 1%, but I doubt they'll use it to enhance the story line to anything other than just what we'd typically expect.
I like the original Judge Dredd.
and a great way to distract from cinematography
Hey, Krane! Making friends again?
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
You're right Krane. You're not the idiot. I'm the idiot.
Jesus, was just trying to point something out to you. Crimeny sake.
Actually, 3D is not a bad thing it just has to be used appropriately. Thus far, not many have figured out how to do that. To be fair, they were equally as reluctant to add sound, color, and eventually surround to film because the felt it was gimmicky and would be distracting (which it probably was in the beginning).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Evil Bastard Productions