Ma-Ma is the weakness of this movie ***spoilers*** - Dredd (2012) Discussion

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eldospeaks 9 years ago

I kind of see what you mean, but that plot point has been done many times before.

Ma Ma ruled through fear. She had people who were close to her that would do her bidding, no matter how violent. Once all of those people were dispatched, all she had left was her backup plan and not even that frightened Dredd. I supposed her end could be seen as somewhat poetic.

It would have been cool to see a climatic end scene, filled with the things you mentioned, but that would have also cost alot of money to do.

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

reply

[–] TerraFirma69 9 years ago

but that plot point has been done many times before

I agree, it's been done to death. It would have made the ending to this movie sooo pedestrian.

I've always appreciated the end of Under Siege that way. There wasn't a big drawn out evenly matched blow for blow boss battle; Our guy clearly outclassed the other guy and it was over quick

lol of course the part of the ending I didn't appreciate was Ryback's "here's ma move" followed by the grapple and uninvited lip wrestle with the playboy girl.....that part made my skin crawl a little.

...then whoa, differences...

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

I kind of see what you mean, but that plot point has been done many times before.

It's not a 'plot point', it's a trope. When you buy ice cream, you expect to get ice cream from the ice cream man. Not tomato juice.

The main reason Dredd bombed so badly, is exactly the botching of the well established trope, action movie convention, of the Final Boss Battle.

Here, read the TV Tropes page about the Boss Battle - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BossBattle
or
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FinalBattle

A Boss movie will simply not sell if it doesn't have a satisfying Boss Battle. It's that simple.

reply

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

.

When you buy ice cream, you expect to get ice cream from the ice cream man. Not tomato juice.

The main reason Dredd bombed so badly, is exactly the botching of the well established trope, action movie convention, of the Final Boss Battle

Yes. The lack of a final boss battle is why they only made one (poorly received) Die Hard movie:

https://youtu.be/cnQEo4bazIo

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Yes. The lack of a final boss battle is why they only made one (poorly received) Die Hard movie:

Die Hard's final battle is exactly as I said: "Dredd should have come close to dying in the last fight with Ma-Ma, reach those depths where he has to decide whether he is ready to die for his cause, and stuff...
Willis is surrounded by the Boss and the survivors of his gang, both Willis and his wife held at gun point. Willis has no way to outgun the Boss and his aids, so he has to outsmart them.

Compare to Dredd's final battle:
Dredd is not surrounded by Ma-Ma, by the time they get to the final battle it is Ma-Ma who is surrounded by Dredd. She has 3 incompetent dudes to guard her in her lair, and they're as useless as the others before them, by this time Ma-Ma's gangsters die in such big numbers, their death has no more impact on the spectator.
There's no romantic connection between Dredd and Anderson (Thirlby), and she saves herself after being captured.
Ma-Ma does not have Dredd by the balls in the final battle, all she has is a tin pot attached to her wrist, that she claims is a terrifying bomb, with a retarded range, so it doesn't really work. Dredd doesn't outsmart Ma-Ma, rather he shows her how retarded she is.
Dredd is never really close to dying in relation to Ma-Ma, the only time he gets close to death is when that corrupt judge shoots him through the wall.

So you see, there's a fine calibration in Die Hard, absent in Dredd:
1. Willis is fighting a pretty well organised group of criminals. Not too many, not too stupid.
While Dredd is fighting a horde of trash criminals, who pose no real threat to him, the only ones who present a problem is that albino who controls the building.
2. Every time Willis kills a dude from the gang, it makes a difference, it allows Willis to get closer to his goal.
While Dredd kills thugs by the truckload, they're only a nuisance, not a real obstacle.
3. Willis has to improvise to get to the Boss.
While Dredd just finds the albino sitting like a duck in the control room, and Anderson takes the access codes to Ma-Ma's lair.
4. The stakes in Die Hard final battle are real - Willis could lose his wife, whom he loves, as the Boss keeps a pistol pointed at her.
While the stakes in Die Hard final battle are bogus - Dredd has nothing to lose but his own life.
5. Death in Die Hard is tangible, visible, real - the Boss is about to shoot Willis and his wife, with a pistol.
While death in Dredd is unreal, dorky, hipsterical - a piece of tin glued to Ma-Ma's wrist, and a nerdy threat: "this bomb is synchronized to my heart beat"

Dredd the movie eliminated Love from the story, and that's fine. But then, if we're not gonna see Dredd and Anderson fall in love, I am left with seeing Ma-Ma getting her punishment.
Punishment for what? for killing other criminals like her? For taking hostages 75 000 proletarians who don't bother to help Dredd? For selling drugs to a population already fcvked up by radiation, pollution and collapse of civilization?

What's the reward for the spectator, after Dredd punishes Ma-Ma? There's no gain, no progress, no triumph. Dredd giving Anderson and her more humane judgment is a very modest victory. Civilization and well being of the people trapped in MC 1 were improved by a tiny little fraction.

Dredd paints itself into a corner where the only reward becomes the Final Boss Battle.

reply

[–] mubhceeb 9 years ago

Why does there even need to be a "reward?"

That's not what the film is about, it's a depiction of a dystopian society on the brink of collapse with the failure of the Judges to restore order to it, just one more example of the futility of it all!

Dredd's whole attitude of, "she broke the law and we're judges" being just one more symptom of that futility.

Make a Dredd sequel Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/MakeADreddSequel

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Why does there even need to be a "reward?"

The spectator needs that reward, to feel satisfaction. He then goes home and tells all his friends of this wonderful movie he saw, and next weekend they go see it. Then they come home and tell all their respective friends about the awesome movie they saw, and pretty soon, the movie makes 100 billion dollars.

That's not what the film is about, it's a depiction of a dystopian society on the brink of collapse with the failure of the Judges to restore order to it, just one more example of the futility of it all!

well, the way it was made, Dredd made $35 million, which is sad.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

The few IMDB users who saw the film in theatres rated it 7.8. Viewer satisfaction wasn't the problem; getting viewers into cinemas in the first place was where the film failed.

There will always be a number of people who will like all sorts of stuff, for all sorts of reasons.
Some people rate high 'The Passion of the Christ', where there's no Final Boss Battle what so ever.
Or you can check out 'The Man from Earth', a "movie" with 7 people sitting in a room, listening to the 8th dude as he tells them the story of his life. He literally tells the story, sitting on that chair, for 90 minutes. There's no flash back to reenactments of his story, it's just this dude sitting in a chair, in a room, telling the other 7 people the story of his life. It has a rating of 8.0, higher than Dredd's 7.0.

So, just by looking at a movie's rating on imdb, you won't figure out how many people are satisfied by it. There's movies that have an imdb rating similar to Dredd's rating, that were a financial hit - 'The Passion...' got $610 mill.

The question is, what made Dredd flop. An appealing movie creates strong word of mouth, even if it's not well advertised. Conversely, there are movies that get plenty of advertising, but flop.

Look at Tom Cruise' 'Edge of Tomorrow' or Blomkamp's 'District 9'. Badly or barely advertised, they still made $370 mill. and $210 mill. respectively, world wide, through strong word of mouth.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

there are many other films which diverge from the standard film making formula and still manage to make their budget back. If deviating from that model made Dredd flop, why didn't they tank too?

I detailed this in a response above. Dredd does not deviate from the formula, it only fails in applying it. Compare Die Hard to Dredd:

Die Hard has a final boss - Gruber. Dredd has a final boss - Ma-Ma.
The protagonist in Die Hard advances to the top of the building. Dredd does the same.
The protagonist in Die Hard has to improvise to make his way up the building. Dredd does the same.
Die Hard boss holds the protagonist's love interest hostage. Dredd boss holds the protagonist's female partner hostage.
Die Hard bad guys are a group of 8-12 people. Dredd bad guys are a horde of hundreds or thousands of people.
Die Hard protagonist kills the bad guys one by one, in a series of mini-fights, each different. Dredd protagonist kills the bad guys by the truckload in a series of mini-fights, and just switches to different types of ammunition, as they hurl down the corridors like headless chickens.
Die Hard's protagonist is walking a thin line, even if we know in the end he will win. Dredd's protagonist also walks a thin line, but soon it becomes obese, we realize pretty fast he's in no real danger, he easily kills everything that's thrown to him, he even throws a bad guy over the balcony right in front of the two miniguns and the crew of bad guys armed to the teeth, even though earlier he hid in a woman's flat, from a bunch of bad guys that posed no different threat to Dredd, than tens of other bad guys he killed before them.
Die Hard protagonist and his wife are reunited in love after the ordeal. Dredd protagonist and his female partner are reunited in duty after the ordeal.
Die Hard' boss outguns the protagonist in the final battle, keeps him at gun point. Dredd's boss outguns the protagonist in the final battle, has a big bomb linked to her heart beat.
Die Hard protagonist outsmarts the boss in the final battle, he had a surprise gun taped on his back, and his surrendering gesture, with his hands in the air, actually enabled him to pull the trigger faster than the boss as he was prepared to shoot him with the pistol. Dredd's protagonist outsmarts the boss in the final battle, as the bomb's detection range was less than a kilometer, as Dredd threw Ma-Ma through the window.
Die Hard protagonist saves the hostages. Dredd protagonist saves the hostages.
Die Hard protagonist is not invincible, he is overpowered by the bad guys. Dredd is not invincible, he is overpowered by the corrupt judges, who shoot him in the stomach.
Die Hard protagonist saves the damsel in distress. Dredd protagonist is saved by the valiant female partner.
etc. etc. etc.

So you see, the recipe is the same. But in Dredd it is executed poorly, without the understanding of how all these elements combine to attract spectators.

In Die Hard, in one move you got:
Protagonist + Love Interest reunited. Protagonist outsmarts a smart Boss. David kills Goliath with one stone. Innocent Hostages are freed. Taking risks pays off. Cowboy cop saves the town from disruption.

In Dredd you have:
Protagonist + duty partner reunited. Protagonist outsmarts a goofy Boss. Tuff Guy stomps on cacaroaches repeatedly. Hostages who let Dredd die, are freed. Dredd is a robot with a death wish, with nothing to lose. There's no change in the life of the mega building after Ma-Ma is killed.

I do agree that there are people who like stories like the one in Dredd the movie. But they are very few, so it makes sense that the movie will not make money.

I personally like Dredd as it is, I gave it a 6 rating, it definitely has good stuff in it. But it also has a lot of stuff broken in it, that could be improved in a future installment. I really think that Dredd is the greatest comics character. I wanna see him getting the movie he deserves.

reply

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

.

Dredd does not deviate from the formula, it only fails in applying it

I really meant my reply above to be my last on this thread, but surely you can see that line of reasoning is a closed loop?

The formula ensures success, but films which follow the formula fail just as films which do not, so any film which sticks to the formula and fails must only have failed because it incorrectly applied the formula.

That's the same type of logic followed by gamblers on a losing streak and believers trying to explain why other adherents of their religion die in natural disasters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Decision-making.2C_belief.2C_and_behavioral_biases

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

The formula ensures success, but films which follow the formula fail just as films which do not, so any film which sticks to the formula and fails must only have failed because it incorrectly applied the formula.

Can you read again where I wrote: "So you see, the recipe is the same. But in Dredd it is executed poorly" ?

I am arguing that Dredd's directors and writers are like cooks, who are baking a cake. They look at other cakes, and they see that those cakes have sugar, flour, eggs, syrup, whipped cream, chocolate, cinnamon, etc. etc. But they doesn't know how to mix them, how much of each ingredient they should put in their own cake, they leave out some ingredients (eg. love between Dredd and Anderson) and stuff.

Because Dredd has very few ingredients, by the end of the story, all that could have saved it was the Final Boss Battle. If the creators of this movie would have made the final battle a degree of intensity above the Mini-Gun Battle, Dredd would have scored $100 million, is my opinion.

Really, ice cream has the same fundamental ingredients anywhere you buy it. It has different flavors or toppings, but ice cream is ice cream, and roast beef is not ice cream.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

The sentences above are identical in meaning.

Hey, thanks for the feedback, I understand what you mean now. I should have been more precise in my wording.

A film formula has at least two parts: 1.ingredients, and 2.how you mix the ingredients

It's like the dudes behind Dredd looked at Die Hard, and said: hey, Bruce Willis fights 8-12 terrorists who are holding his wife hostage inside a 150 meters building. Let's make Dredd fight 1200 terrorists who are holding 75 000 anonymous hostage inside a 1.5 kilometers building. Same same, but different, but still same!

You may know that to make french fries you dip potato slices in hot oil. But a tasty french fry is not just a potato slice dipped in hot oil. You leave that potato slice cook at low temperature for heat to get to its core, then you increase temperature to make the exterior crunchy.

So it's not enough to just dip a potato slice in hot oil, to get tasty french fries. You have to know how much time you let the potato slice fry, at what temperature, and how to get a well cooked interior with a crunchy exterior.

Dredd's makers are like a cook who doesn't know how to cook. Actually, the formula for an appealing movie is very complex, and they couldn't get all the parts to function together.

The problem that I have with saying "it didn't follow the formula" is that this imply that they explored new grounds, and tried to change the formula, when for me it appears that they desperately tried to reverse engineer the success of movies like Die Hard, and failed.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

A surface similarity of certain components between the premises of both films does not indicate both films have the same goals and is ignoring the differences in character, theme and subtext between them.

Yes, you could say that Steven Seagal and Vin Diesel only share surface similarities of certain components - like, having 2 feet and 2 hands, 2 eyes and 2 ears, 1 head and 1 heart, lungs, stomach, muscles, bones, etc. but there's differences in character and subtext - like, one is bald and the other one has a beard.

I give you that.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

.

Die Hard's final battle is exactly as I said: "Dredd should have come close to dying in the last fight with Ma-Ma, reach those depths where he has to decide whether he is ready to die for his cause, and stuff...
Willis is surrounded by the Boss and the survivors of his gang, both Willis and his wife held at gun point. Willis has no way to outgun the Boss and his aids, so he has to outsmart them

No, Bruce Willis pulls a gun and shoots Alan Rickman, who falls through a window. There's another dude there, who looks like Huey Lewis, and Willis shoots him with a single shot too.

That's not a boss fight and you know it.

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zebrahead1976 9 years ago

I agree with others, you took the time to write all that...just enjoy the movie lol. If you liked it or not that's why we all have opinions. As others have mentioned the typical ending you wanted would have been horrible and cliche. I couldn't care less what this movie made, it was clearly made with the fans in mind, not a Hollywood cash cow...and I greatly appreciate that.
On another note the ending you proposed wouldn't negate two points of this film. Dredd was poorly done in the 95 version and they took special care to get it right this time, which they did. Mama was a "boss" who ruled with fear and intimidation. The ending that was done kept both of those things in mind, Mama isn't really a "boss" with no one to do her bidding and Dredd is a tough SOB with pretty much zero personality. The ending you propose would fail both of those characters.

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

I couldn't care less what this movie made, it was clearly made with the fans in mind, not a Hollywood cash cow...and I greatly appreciate that.

Uh, I am a fan of Dredd, and I'm trying to figure out what was the problem with this movie, because it left me underwhelmed.

Discussing the movie with other people, especially those who disagree with my opinion, allows me to better understand what went wrong with this movie.

If you found it to be great, good for you. I wish I could say the same. Because I want a good Dredd movie, Dredd is my favorite comics character.

reply

[–] eldospeaks 9 years ago

When I was younger, you could buy cigarettes from the ice cream van.

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

reply

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 9 years ago

She's half Dredd's size and lacks his paramilitary training. How exactly could the fight have realistically ended differently?

Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you.

reply

[–] matt_shade 9 years ago

She doses him with a drug cocktail including slo-mo so it affects him quickly then goes for his jugular with a razor?

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

reply

[–] eldospeaks 9 years ago

Only to be shot dead by Anderson.

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

reply

[–] matt_shade 9 years ago

That would set off the kaboom.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

reply

[–] eldospeaks 9 years ago

But this a hypothetical ending to the Dredd movie, the one where Ma Ma is a half crazed, cybernetic killing machine that spits bees and excretes barbed wire.

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

reply

[–] Neffys 9 years ago

I don't know, but for me the story wasn¨t about the great villain. It was the journey to the final destination, and not so much as the destination itself, if you know what I mean?

"I'd like to keep Spike as my pet"- Illyria, Angel S. 5

reply

[–] Sublime4914 9 years ago

I agree with you, the journey was awesome too. The ending i thought was actually pretty cool. He gambles his own life by throwing her off the roof top so in a way he did come close to dying. Im thankful it wasnt the cliche boss fight, the ending highlights how bad ass dredd is.

reply

[–] Neffys 9 years ago

i agree with the ending and was happy that it wasn't a cliche one.

"I'd like to keep Spike as my pet"- Illyria, Angel S. 5

reply

[–] C.S.Wood 9 years ago

Okay granted I didn't read the whole thread as it's very long and I don't want to get into anyone else's argument without having read everything, but as someone who loves this movie, Ma-Ma is far and away one of the very BEST things about the movie.

You don't NEED a final boss fight with her. She's not that kind of villain. Dredd already came close to dying and was saved by Anderson earlier in the movie with the rogue judges. No need to rehash that trope.

Ma-Ma isn't a fighter, she's more of a tactician/leader. She knows trying to kill Dredd is pointless. Everyone else under her control has tried and failed. So her final play was to threaten to blow up the entire building believing Dredd wouldn't risk it.

What I love about the movie, is that she's dead wrong. How many movies have we seen where the bad guy says "put down your gun or I do X" and then the hero puts down his gun? I always hate that. Just once I want the hero to not put down his gun and shoot the hero even at the risk of killing a hostage or setting off the bomb, and I got that in Dredd.

And how he ends Ma-Ma, oh my God is that a beautiful and cruel death. So much better than just shooting her. I wouldn't change a single thing about this movie.

Revenge is the most important meal of the day.

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Ma-Ma is far and away one of the very BEST things about the movie.

I've explained that Ma-Ma follows the Final Boss trope, but the execution is weak.

In the Final Boss Fight, Ma-Ma raises the stakes very high - the building and its 75 000 residents will go BOOM if she dies. This is the typical trope, where the protagonist faces a dilemma of a degree higher than everything to that point

BUT.

Earlier in the story, the residents of the building provided absolutely NO HELP to Dredd, after Ma-Ma threatened to kill them if they help Dredd. Only when Anderson uses her psychic powers to manipulate that woman to let them inside, did Dredd get help from one resident.
Why then, would we care about the residents of the building, if they're leaving Dredd to die, when he's after the very person who is terrorizing them?

So, Dredd saving 75 000 residents is out of the equation. What's left is Dredd's own life to be saved. We, the audience, are watching Dredd fighting Ma-Ma in the final fight, facing the dilemma: should Dredd walk away and save his life, but leave Ma-Ma to continue in her evil ways? or should Dredd die, just to stop Ma-Ma and her evil ways?

BUT.

Earlier in the story, Dredd had already faced death, at the gun of a corrupt judge. He took a bullet to his torso. Previously, he survived 2 big miniguns demolishing an entire floor of the megabuilding. Therefore, if Dredd is to be put in the Life or Death dilemma again, it has to be a degree higher than anything before, as this is Ma-Ma, the final boss.
And indeed, Ma-Ma threatens him with a bomb set to her heartbeat.
How will Dredd solve this very difficult problem? A bomb that kills him if he kills the boss.

then, Dredd just throws Ma-Ma out the window, and we learn that Ma-Ma's bomb was programmed by a dude who didn't give a fcvk, setting its range to less than 1.5 km - the height of the building.

Dredd won the fight against the final boss, not because he was smart and inventive and heroic, but because whoever designed Ma-Ma's bomb, set it to a range of less than 1.5 km...

...and that's retarded.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Is that just a coincidence?

Despite Ma-Ma threatening to kill whoever helps Dredd, that one woman helps Dredd.
If one resident can do that, then all residents can do the same.

It follows then, that Dredd is not fighting to save the residents. What we're watching is not "hero saving the citizens", but Dredd's personal fight against evil, a "Christ vs Satan".

Dredd is not concerned with saving the 75 000 citizens, who aren't worthy, Dredd is concerned with defeating Satan. The citizens don't know what they're doing, they're meek and weak against Evil.

This movie's ideology is terrible. Dredd's cyber-punk character is being dipped in a Christian holly water bowl. That one mother with child resident is a mutated Mary Magdalen and the Baby, who helps Dredd and Anderson, but only to somehow protect her husband.

This movie really a disaster...

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Dredd isn't a good guy, but his recognition that Anderson is is about as much of a happy ending and narrative catharsis as you can expect from a film which makes it clear what happened that night is no big deal for Dredd (it was a drug bust), that Ma-Ma did not pose an existential or philosophical threat to him, and that he'll go on doing exactly the same later that day and each day for the rest of his life.

You're right in that Anderson's arc is the juiciest part of the movie. But Dredd giving Anderson a pass is also making an arc, in that he recognizes that a change has to be made in the system. Dredd himself is changed at the end of the movie, make no mistake. It his him who sees the change in Anderson, and allows it to enter the system, whence it will probably spread.

Yes, Dredd was an amoral robot in the beginning of the movie, but at the end of the movie he is closer to being a human, as Anderson's humanity touches his soul, blah blah.

The point I'm making is, that Dredd has very little stuff going on, and I think what could have enabled it to avoid bombing, would have been a solid Final Boss Fight.
Now I realize that a good Final Boss Fight is actually very difficult to make, and the makers of this movie lack the required experience in achieving such feat.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Dredd moves, his character changes, but he’s like a glacier, you don’t see it change.

Read this again and again, until you understand. Dredd goes through a change, and you can see that change when he gives Anderson a pass, in spite of her breaking the rules.

Dredd gives a pass where the rule says he shouldn't. That transformation happens in the sacred plane, not in the profane plane. The guy whom you quoted, expresses this subtlety, in a primitive manner: "Dredd changes, but you don't see him change".

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

"The guy" is Alex Garland, the screenwriter, producer, and defacto director of the film you're discussing.

There's a difference between what a man says, and what a man does. It's called ideology. A man can do something completely opposite to what he thinks he is doing. A man can do wrong, thinking he does good. A man can make a movie where a character goes through a change, and he can be convinced that the character is not actually changing.

We can analyze what a man thinks and says, ad infinitum, and we still won't make sense of it, because people can be rational, but also irrational. If you go down the irrational way, I won't join you.

But if you care to go down the rational way, Dredd goes through a change: he gives a pass to Anderson, against the rule that says he shouldn't give her a pass.

If you don't agree that by giving a pass to Anderson, Dredd is changed, then I understand and respect that. I am not interested in wasting my time swimming in the irrational lagoon. I have two tickets to the rational geyser, if you wanna join me.
Cheers.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

That's it! Passing Anderson doesn't change Dredd's ideology or his world view, it's a pragmatic decision. The kid came through and saved his bacon; she didn't teach him to love and share.

Anderson failed the assessment mission! If you're proposing that Dredd would act against the law, because a rookie "saved his bacon", you are destroying Dredd's character.

The change is that Dredd allows a new paradigm - Anderson - to get inside and transform his old paradigm - the Great Hall of Justice. He brings change at the heart of the system of judges!

I understand if it's too hard to understand this paradigm shift...

Dredd sees that his old paradigm is bankrupt - represented as the corrupt judges working for Ma-Ma, so he understands that he has to adopt a new paradigm - represented as Anderson.

It's a fundamental paradigm shift, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with "love and share".
The paradigm shift is an evolution from Inhumane to Humane - the inhumane is represented as Dredd hiding his face and emotions at all time, the humane is represented as Anderson taking risks as she exposes her head and emotions.

Again, movies are made for the audience. The single most important element in the experience, is the audience identifying with the protagonist.
The intention with Dredd the movie, is for the audience to experience this quantum leap, a tiny tiny electron that changes its understanding of the world, that will transform reality. The audience is supposed to make that switch through Dredd.

But the audience doesn't experience that, therefore the movie bombed. Because making the audience click in with the protagonist, is an art. And the makers of this movie don't master the process, yet. They go on Christ tangents and stuff. And you can't mix Cyber-Punk with Christianity, it's an abomination...

reply

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

.

I understand if it's too hard to understand this paradigm shift...

You only get one warning about this kind of puerile time wasting. Goodbye.

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

.

Earlier in the story, Dredd had already faced death, at the gun of a corrupt judge ... Dredd won the fight against the final boss because whoever designed Ma-Ma's bomb set it to a range of less than 1.5 km...

As you point out, Ma-Ma isn't the "final boss". She's like Hans Gruber - the coda that ties off the story.

The fight where McLane is tested to his physical limits, where he has to reach within himself to discover the last fragment of willpower and energy necessary to overcome the threat of an equally matched opponent - where the physical struggle means something - is the scrap with the brother of the guy he killed at the start of the film.

According to your narrative analysis, McLane putting a single bullet in Gruber then letting him fall to his death (exactly as Dredd does to Ma-Ma) is "retarded" and spoils the end of Die Hard.

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

According to your narrative analysis, McLane putting a single bullet in Gruber then letting him fall to his death (exactly as Dredd does to Ma-Ma) is "retarded" and spoils the end of Die Hard.

In Die Hard the Final Boss Fight, McLane faces a dilemma of a degree higher than anything before: his own wife is about to die. His actions will now affect his own person!

The dilemma is: Would the protagonist sacrifice himself so he can save his love? Would the protagonist save himself and lose his love? Would the protagonist sacrifice himself and his love, to save the people?

McLane solves the dilemma by walking a thin line: he has a weapon taped to his back, and the very gesture of surrender that he makes, enables him to get to the gun. As the Final Boss prepares to kill him, he laughs. McLane confronts death with a laugh, puzzling the death bringer. Then the David slings his stone at the Goliath, cutting the knot of the dilemma.
With one bullet, McLane got love back in his life, he saved his wife, he saved the people, killed the evil, proved everybody that his way of doing things is the best.

Die Hard's final boss fight is a pretty satisfying harmony of symbols and tropes flowing to a resolve.

Dredd's final boss fight is a hesitant contradiction of symbols and tropes, jumping arbitrarily to a resolve.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agraza 9 years ago

so you think he should let 75,000 people die because they didn't decide to go against a criminal organization with thousands of heavily-armed members living next door, capable of taking down an entire level with wall-piercing machine guns and blowing up the entire building, and after the ONLY example of a citizen trying to voluntarily help Dredd got shot in the act?

Man you'd make a *beep* awful judge, I also hope you're not a cop because you'd probably let people die in a hostage situation.

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

so you think he should let 75,000 people die because they didn't decide to go against a criminal

It's a movie. I'm showing you how movies work. Movies are not logical, because we know it's a movie! We know that Lena Headey as Ma-Ma, is not really dying.

So, applying real life logic, doesn't sell a movie. If you apply logic to Avatar or Snow White, you wouldn't be able to sell any tickets. Do you really think rabbits can talk? Snow White talks to rabbits. That's preposterous.

reply

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

I'm showing you how movies work

No you're not. You're a guy who wanted the film to end in a big fight - "the biggest, bestest fight moves and splosions, arsenal, all her minions being thrown against Dredd ... the greatest fx and moves ... Dredd should have come close to dying in the last fight with Ma-Ma, reach those depths where he has to decide whether he is ready to die for his cause".

When it was pointed out to you that the big fight you desired happened in the drug lab, you changed tack and decided the emotional stakes needed to be higher. When it was pointed out that Dredd kills the villain to save the lives of 74,900 innocent men, women, and children*, you maneuvered yourself into the unenviable position of arguing that they're all guilty and so do not count.

* each stage of the film is punctuated by shots of very young children, first in domestic situations with parents, then being snatched from the walkways and taken indoors for protection by parents who are clearly in fear for their lives

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

No you're not. You're a guy who wanted the film to end in a big fight

I recommend you Tvtropes site. Movies, comix, stories, have a recipe, or a structure, that is pretty well understood.

It is not I who wants the movie to end in a big fight. The movie itself culminates with a big fight, known as Final Boss Battle trope.

The Final Boss Battle in Dredd the movie, does not work. It is anti-climactic. The tension is not there. The stakes are not there.

When it was pointed out to you that the big fight you desired happened in the drug lab,

The Big Boss is Ma-Ma, not the corrupt judges, who die within 10 minutes of entering the story. If you don't see the fundamentals of this movie genre, you certainly won't see the more subtle mechanisms that I'm trying to detail.

The corrupt judges fight is there only to show us that Dredd sees the truth about the Justice system. That is not the climax of the story. The climax is the Final Boss Battle.

reply

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

I recommend you Tvtropes site. Movies, comix, stories, have a recipe, or a structure, that is pretty well understood

I understand film and narrative theory perfectly. Successful films don't have to follow the kind of limited blueprint you describe - I've already pointed out that Die Hard employs exactly the same FIGHT TO THE DEATH followed by perfunctory dispatch of effete lead villain dynamic as Dredd ...

... but that's what set you off on the path that led you to claim audiences don't care about a building full of cute, multi-racial children AND OUR HEROES dying in a Twin Towers style inferno and building collapse.

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

You're talking about the mechanics of video games, not 'movies', Mr. Final Big Boss.

The Final Boss trope is from the movies, whence it was imported by video games.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] criztu 9 years ago

'Final Boss' is specifically an entrenched, unchanging challenge at the end of video games

just google "final boss trope" and spare me with your ignorance

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

just google "final boss trope" and spare me with your ignorance

Spare us the effort of googling and explain how many films featured a lengthy, set-piece fight between the hero and a powerful villain as their dramatic conclusion, prior to 1980?

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

The Final Boss trope is from the movies, and it spread to games

I remember how Bogart had to keep moving in concentric circles to avoid the hail of missiles from Claude Rains's cyborg tentacles during the final level of Casablanca.

Noble gesture - RICK WINS!!!

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] Unicorn-9 9 years ago

Dude, Boss Fights are just so 1990s. This movie failed to make a profit because it looked much cheaper than it was, not because it didn't follow some tired old game trope for writers who have no imagination.

reply

[–] mubhceeb 9 years ago

Regardless of how "cheap" it looked, at least it had a coherent and uncontrived script!

Something J.J. Abrams could of taken notes from, while developing The Force Awakens.

Make a Dredd sequel Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/MakeADreddSequel

reply

[–] Unicorn-9 9 years ago

Perhaps I should have phrased it the other way around: it was much more expensive than it looked, hence it had a hard time making that money back. I was amazed when I saw how large the budget was for a movie that was mostly about a few people in a tower block.

As for Abrams, you can hardly expect anything original from a hack like that. The trailer was enough to convince me that it was just a politically-correct remake of the original Star Wars.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fiero-49251 9 years ago

Just surfed by with scene of Ma-Ma ordering an entire floor eviscerated by gunfire! Never seen simple bullets penetrating stone so easily! There was no cover you could take for men, women, & children! It was the most brutal thing since pushing Jews into ovens! I won't need to see a sequel! That kind of future, you might as well drop "the bomb" on your own country! That was a mess! ;-(

- - http://scifiblogs3.blogspot.com/ - - Sci-fi, Batman, and E:FC

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/ - - Homage to DW & B7

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

There was no cover you could take for men, women, & children! It was the most brutal thing

Yet Dredd and Blondie survive without a scratch. They even find a bunch of kids on a terrace of that level, casually playing like all was cool.

reply

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

The kids are skating on an outside promontory, protected from the firefight within the building by external shielding designed to mitigate against the detonation of a nuclear warhead.

If I was looking to pick holes in the logic of that scene, it would be to query why one of the villains' bullets (and Dredd's hi-ex round), are able to penetrate that same shielding.

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] criztu 9 years ago

The kids are skating on an outside promontory, protected from the firefight within the building by external shielding designed to mitigate against the detonation of a nuclear warhead.

Dude, you really don't understand how movies work...

If you're going structural engineer on me, learn that you can't destroy the entirety of the walls inside that building, without the floor collapsing.
So technically, there are resistance pillars inside the building, onto which the floors rest.

So Ma-Ma using her miniguns to wipe out everybody on that floor, is simply retarded, because she can't destroy the resistance pillars, without the floor collapsing.

you are simply hopeless. This movie was poorly done, that's why it bombed at the box office, theaters AND dvd.

Dredd bombed. Even if I am a fan of Dredd, this movie is bad, and it bombed badly.

reply

[–] major_lazer 9 years ago

Dude, you really don't understand how movies work...

If you're going structural engineer on me, learn that you can't destroy the entirety of the walls inside that building, without the floor collapsing.
So technically, there are resistance pillars inside the building, onto which the floors rest.

So Ma-Ma using her miniguns to wipe out everybody on that floor, is simply retarded, because she can't destroy the resistance pillars, without the floor collapsing.

Yes. That is how movies work. Thank you for that explanation of how movies work.

http://youtu.be/OI3shBXlqsw

reply

[–] andri-file 8 years ago

You get the boss battle though: it is between the Judges. Ma-ma is just weak without her henchmen. Killing her, as Dredd says, was just a "drug bust".

reply

[–] criztu 8 years ago

You get the boss battle though: it is between the Judges. Ma-ma is just weak without her henchmen. Killing her, as Dredd says, was just a "drug bust".

The Ma-ma final battle is packaged as the Final Boss fight, with a high-stake - the bomb connected to her heartbeat that would destroy the whole building and the 70 000 people in it.

The entire movie is about Dredd getting to Ma-ma's chambers and punishing her.
The Judges are on Ma-ma's payroll, they're risking their lives to save Ma-ma's ass, for a fistful of dollars.

reply

[–] stardust (5) 8 years ago

I rather hate the final boss battle trope. And in Dredd I think it's realistic; without henchmen to do their bidding, villains are not much of a problem.

Was there anything epic about the end of Hitler, Saddam or Bin Laden? No, they're all tragic stories of the downfall of once powerful people who resort to hiding before their pathetic demise.

Also the final lack of closure is in line with the universe: just another shitty day in a pointless battle against the rising chaos of a collapsing society.

I like this movie precisely because it dares to do its own thing and it's not yet another by-the-numbers hollywood action blockbuster.

reply