Better than the remake. Here's why. - Judge Dredd (1995) Discussion

[–] Norse_Sage 12 years ago

Yeah.

The new movie is not a remake, but an unrelated adaptation of the original source material. And it hit all the marks the Stallone movie missed. Everyone involved in the production of the movie, as well as all fans of Judge Dredd, spit in the general direction of the Stallone movie.

Tesla was robbed!

reply

[–] IMDB_Vits 12 years ago

The new movie is not a remake, but an unrelated adaptation of the original source material.

That's the same arguement Fincher used with TGWTDT. And also the Coens with TRUE GRIT. As far as I'm concerned (and I know I'm not the only one who thinks like this), if you adapt something that was already adapted before, but you focus on the source material instead of the old movie, it's still a remake.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with my comments on the movie. Did you see them?

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IMDB_Vits 12 years ago

No, it's a sequel to a reboot. The '89 movie would've been a remake of the '60s movie if that one hadn't been adapted from the TV series.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IMDB_Vits 12 years ago

A film is only a remake if it is based on an earlier film and shares some, if not all, of it's plot points.

Wait, no, that's... ummm... a good point. Dammit!

Your logic dictates that Tim Burton's Batman was a remake of the 60's TV show.

I said that it would've been but isn't a remake of the '60s movie.

You are also implying that the 60's Batman film was the first to be released. This is not the case.

There were Batman films made as early as the 1940's.

I'm not sure if those count for being serials. But let's say they do.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrRazorz 12 years ago

The meaning of "remake" is fuzzy, I think. But when you refer to a film as a "remake", the implication is that it's based on the first movie, which the Urban film isn't. And since many people's only experience of Judge Dredd was the Stallone film (especially in the US) it's important to make it clear that the two aren't linked except in terms of adapting the same source material.

The only thing that rankles me more than calling the Urban film a "remake" is when people refer to the Stallone film as "the original". Urgh.

reply

[–] Iron_Eagle74 12 years ago

It's better than the remake because it has a plot....and acting. The remake, if you can call it that, is action porn. No story at all.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rgon-1 12 years ago

________________________________________________________________
You watched a blank screen for ninety minutes?
________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that, as far as Iron_Eagle 74 is concerned, he might as well have.

reply

[–] Sirus_51 12 years ago

It's better than the remake because it has a plot....and acting. The remake, if you can call it that, is action porn. No story at all.

**************************************************************

Really?

I am the Laaawwwwllllllll.

Twitcher Rob Schnieder

Bug eyes Assante chewing up the scenery.

Compared to the more gritty , composed acting of the remake where a persons humanity shines through moments of despair.

Right.

-------------
In a fair universe, we would all be better people.

reply

[–] Norse_Sage 12 years ago

Actually, the new adaptation (which in no way, shape or form is a remake) has a less cliched plot and better acting - and while this obviously went way the f above your head, it also had a whole different level of depth and subtext than that kiddie Stallone movie. That you failed so spectacularly to see it says more about you than the movie.

Tesla was robbed!

reply

[–] SinisterCreep 12 years ago

Actually, the new adaptation (which in no way, shape or form is a remake) has a less cliched plot and better acting - and while this obviously went way the f above your head, it also had a whole different level of depth and subtext than that kiddie Stallone movie. That you failed so spectacularly to see it says more about you than the movie.

Tesla was robbed!

I like Dredd but he's right in some ways. the new movie although more true to the spirit of the comic is pretty much action porn without much of a story. And the Stallone movie is still quite violent and not a kiddie movie.

reply

[–] directorscut 11 years ago

There is absolutely no depth or subtext in the new DREDD film. It's a violent nuts and bolts action film, nothing more, nothing less.

Proud member of the Pro-film Anti-digital Society (PFADS).

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Norse_Sage 11 years ago

There is far more depth and subtext in Dredd than there s in 90 % of other CBM's or actioners in general. Of course, this is visually communicated, not spelled out for you, Nolan style. If you are not prepared to not just watch but SEE what us happening and put the visual cues together to decipher the meaning and themes, then it'll fly right over your head - which it did.

Tesla was robbed!

reply

[–] Doctor_Nico 11 years ago

The 95 had a plot, with a twist. It has many different locations. The universe where it's set feels really sci fi. The action sequences are varied, and not just one giant gun fight. There is humor, lot of action, various plot points, a great OST.

None of it apply in the 2012 version. It's insanely serious for the lack of story it's telling. It's just the same action sequence all over again. It feels cheap, and would have worked better as a contemporary movie than a sci fi flick. And the OST is crap compared to the masterpiece Jerry Goldsmith composed for the first film.

Oh and Danny Cannon directing style is way better than the one in the reboot.

I fail to see what people found so better in the new version.

reply

[–] eldospeaks 11 years ago

I fail to see what people found so better in the new version.

It had an actor playing Judge Dredd.

"I stooped to pick a buttercup. Why people leave buttocks lying around, I've no idea."

reply

[–] rgon-1 11 years ago

Good point, Doctor_Nico.

reply

[–] Sirus_51 11 years ago

The problem with the 95 version was for a dystopia things seemed pretty okay. More blade runner then humanity on its last legs. If your a fan of the Dredd comic it didnt feel like Dredd. Even if you where not it seemed lacking, you could see the twists coming and while the characters where fun they where forgettable.

Dredd, the new one showed humanity on the brink and falling over an inch at the time. Where by neccesity the law was final, unyielding. Where only six percent of crime gets investigated . Where a young woman who can feel the world around her is taught to shut that part off for her to administer cold justice.

Where the ultimate law enoforcer upholds the thin line of Order in a setting where death and murder is the norm, background noise of a City screaming in chaos and despair.

Where a little mercy in as precious as water to the thirsty.

Judge Dredd 95 will always be the more fun film. But the latest Dredd will always be the better film.
-------------
In a fair universe, we would all be better people.

reply

[–] cyberdynesystems101 11 years ago

It feels cheap, and would have worked better as a contemporary movie than a sci fi flick. And the OST is crap compared to the masterpiece Jerry Goldsmith composed for the first film.

Um yeah, Jerry Goldsmith didn't compose the score for Judge Dredd, Alan Silvestri did. Goldsmith was attached for a short period of time, and only compose a small piece for the trailer before being leaving because production was taking too long to start.

I an't afraid of no ghosts!

reply

[–] MrRazorz 11 years ago

The 95 had a plot

So did the 2012 one, if you were paying attention.

with a twist.

Yeah, but not a great one. There wasn't any particular reason for Dredd and Rico's origins to be a secret. The story that played out in the comic - ie, Dredd being part of a bloodline of clones who've all turned out to be fundamentally flawed in one way or another, leaving Dredd himself to question his own character - was compelling enough without a bargain-basement "Luke, I am your father" moment tacked on.

It has many different locations.

So? How does that necessarily make a film better?

The universe where it's set feels really sci fi.

The setting of Dredd was a little too 21st century, but only in the opening scenes. Once they were inside Peach Trees, there were enough sci-fi elements to keep you in Dredd's world without overwhelming you with flashy effects.

The action sequences are varied, and not just one giant gun fight.

Personally, I was impressed with the (semi) realistic tactics that Urban and Thirlby use. When faced with a room full of armed perps, they toss in a flash-bang to gain the upper hand, then go in and take them all out as quickly and efficiently as possible - because that’s what you’d actually do. Compare this to the opening scene of Stallone’s film, where he plays peek-a-boo with a room full of bad guys just to show off all the ammo types in his gun. “Rapid fire, with stupid ray-gun sound effect! Armour-piercing, so I can shoot that guy through the stock of his shotgun for some reason! Double whammy, because those two guys are conveniently standing the right distance apart! Wow, I’ve popped out from the same side of this doorway three or four times now without getting hit! It’s a good thing these guys learned to shoot at Stormtrooper academy!”

There is humor

Shouty Rob Schneider humour, yes. As opposed to the dry black humour in the Urban film, which better matches the character from the comic.

lot of action

Weren’t you just complaining that the other film was “one giant gun fight?”

Oh and Danny Cannon directing style is way better than the one in the reboot.

How so? What elements ofthe two styles ar you comparing?

I fail to see what people found so better in the new version.

An accurate portrayal of the character whose story it’s adapating, brought to life by a writer, director and actor who all understood the character and cared about getting him right, with the seal of approval from the majority of people familiar with the character, and the people who created him in the first place?

reply

[–] joel-craike 8 years ago

Judge Dredd is not better than the 2012 version at all (just my opinion).
I do like Judge Dredd from 1995 but the 2012 version is a million times better than the 1995 version IMO.

reply

[–] mubhceeb 8 years ago

Judge Dredd is not better than the 2012 version at all (just my opinion).
I do like Judge Dredd from 1995 but the 2012 version is a million times better than the 1995 version IMO.

Very true.

Judge Dredd had some effective visual elements and production design, but as an adaptation of the comic book character it utterly failed.
Dredd was a far more faithful adaptation and a better film as a consequence.

Bring Back Dredd sequel Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/BringBackDredd/

reply

[–] joel-craike 8 years ago

@mubhceeb Yep I agree with you, I hope they make a sequel to Dredd (2012) with Karl Urban returning.

reply

[–] mubhceeb 8 years ago

Me too! 😉

Bring Back Dredd sequel Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/BringBackDredd/

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheFatDruidofNacyl 8 years ago

I liked the original better mostly because of the story, compared to the story of Dredd. I think both main actors did a great job for the type of Dredd they were playing. Both had flaws in my opinion, but I enjoyed the overall movie of the first one better.

Come visit my http://theblackrosecastle.com

reply