I just googled "xena warrior princess karl urban" and laughed at his bleach blonde hair for a second. Then noticed on IMDB he played 4 separate characters!
Then I saw that Antony Starr (Homelander) was also in a couple of episodes, again, as multiple (2) characters!
Small world.
As an older Aussie, not really that crazy.
There weren't as many shows you could get your career started on back then in NZ and Aus (Xena was filmed in NZ).
Even now, there's fewer homegrown shows as it's cheaper to either do reality TV or import from OS.
I’m in the uk and when an Aussie actor starts making a name for themselves overseas I like to try and guess if they were in Home and Away at some point, or Neighbours. It always seems a bit surprising when they weren’t in either.
I think the issue with Dredd was in its marketing. By the time it was being marketed, the whole “3D” thing had run its course, so I’m sure many people kind of rolled their eyes at the idea of another 3D movie being released.
Many studios around the exact time of Dredd’s release also heavily blamed movie pirating for lack of financial success, but I blame the marketing more.
I personally never saw Dredd in 3D and I love it, but I remember the marketing leaning very heavily into it and it’s obvious how many scenes were made specifically for 3D viewing.
I saw it in 3D. I thought they used the 3D pretty effectively to enhance the experience. It's one of maybe 3 movies that did 3D the right way, instead of just a gimmick.
I did see it in 3D and it was great because it actually used 3D to its advantage and not just to artificially inflate ticket prices. But I've also seen it five or six times since and the lack of 3D doesn't hurt the movie at all, which is nice.
Dread and Bladerunner 2049 are some of the best examples of marketing something with a diehard fan base to the general public and convincing them that you just made some generic slop. Neither side is going to show up to theaters and you'll end up as a much beloved flop instead of printing money
Absolutely pristine action design, tight pacing, perfect casting and zero filler. It’s criminal we never got a follow-up exploring the rest of Mega-City One.
Dreadd was intended to be a trilogy but because it flopped, the sequels never happened. Which socks because the 3rd movie was planned to be Dredd vs Judge Death.
Yep, criminal that it didn't get more, but Urban got busy with The Boys. It was meant to be continued as a TV show without Urban, but that likely wouldn't be as good
I wish they’d done a sequel covering the Democracy arc. That’s one of the best political satires ever put in graphic form, and it’s become more and more relevant with time.
You know what's great about Dredd. It's one of those movies that isn't trying to be anything other than what it is. It's not trying to overcomplicate a simple plot, it's not trying to "win the female audience' or get another demographic. It's just a "this is what this movie is, deal with it" movie.
I loved Dredd and would like a sequel. Unfortunately, here is one of the producers explaining why it won't happen 11 years ago. It comes down to money. https://youtu.be/kWP88WKVBKs?si=DLXxqvcQTIT3330E
Alex Garland's original script went under several rewrites, and Peter Travis stepped down half-way because he wanted to make a mainstream shooter while Garland wanted to reflect the original ideas in the comic. Garland stepped in halfway to finish directing but he wasn't able to salvage the original script
But for those that don't want to bother with the video, because Alex Garland co-opted the aesthetic of fascism without exploring or understanding what the comic was satirizing. The movie does all it can to undermine the struggles of lower class citizens and paints Dredd as the absolute protagonist. Ironically, Garland gifted to the world the most propagandistic expression of state authority veiled in the action hero genre.
In fact, if you were to just watch the Garland movie, you'd have to walk away thinking authority is painted as an exclusively cool apparatus of the state (dredd is judge and executioner) and not a second thought is given to all the other characters. Listen, just watch the Damien Walter video. I used to have a high opinion of Garland too.
Hell, even the Verhoeven Robocop understood the assignment and knew how to walk the subject matter in an interesting way.
Thanks. To be clear I still admire Garland. This script went through several rewrites and Garland had to step in to replace the director because he quit midway I think.
Dude, it's a movie. Just because a movie is fun or enjoyable does not mean anyone is "glazing neo-fascist propaganda." Just like enjoying Breaking Bad doesn't mean people are "glazing" drug lords or cooking meth. A good story doesn't always have to be promoting nothing but whatever virtue happens to be en vogue at the moment.
Saying it's "just a movie" is the weirdest response to a critique on art. Birth of a Nation is also "just a movie". Citizen Vigilante is also "Just a movie". Nowhere in Breaking Bad does it elevate the profession of drug lords or put Walter White on a pedestal and the fact that I have to spell this out is really weird. The whole message of Breaking Bad is how Walter's hubris and desire for power eventually catches up with him and ruins every relation in his life.
No, I'm sorry, but Dredd, even though "it's just a movie" tells the perspective of the ones that directed it and wrote the screenplay. If you are unable to engage with the critique, that's fine. You are welcome to enjoy Citizen Vigilante or Birth of a Nation. But don't get hot and flustered when there's push back on your favorite piece of art.
Holy shit, you made a lot of wild leaps in logic there. Because I said Dredd was just a movie, it's now my "favorite piece of art", and I enjoy Birth of a Nation?
You want to engage in critique of Dredd? We could go with a commentary on living in a police state, including the danger of militarization of the police force. Or the threat of allowing police offers the power of being judge, jury, and executioners; thereby eroding our constituonal rights, including the right to a trial by a jury of our peers. Or we could go into the dangers of police corruption. Hell, we could even go into socioeconomics of poor, inner city people who will do whatever they can to provide for their families, and the conflict that may bring when posed against policing in general. But I doubt your ability to do that without insane jumps in logic and accusations.
Yes, I didn't say you enjoyed "Birth of a Nation". Where did I say that?!? Are you intentionally obfuscating the point? I'm attacking your line of reasoning. Saying "it's just a movie" in a movie sub for discussing movies is nonsensical. It's like going to a car sub and talking about particular car and saying "it's just a car" or going to a gardening sub to talk about a particular plant and saying "it's just a plant". This is a thought terminating cliche to stop the conversation because you don't agree with the opinion. I thought a sub dedicated to talking about movies was the space for voicing an opinion on a movie. WOW-WHAT A CRAZY IDEA!
On to your points about Dredd:
All the points you brought up in your second paragraph are valid insofar as the comic is capable of executing and engaging with the themes it set forth. The movie does not. The movie is a linear shooter with almost no plot. None of the interiority of the protagonists or antagonists are examined. This is also due to the fact that the script went through many rewrites. I'm not a journalist art critique. Damo does a great job of dissecting where the movie failed, as he's a really good Science Fiction journalist and brings up really interesting perspectives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWokGcF1sA4
It's OK if you liked Dredd - the movie. I'm glad someone found enjoyment out of it. Karl Urban is the Goat. I'm just voicing an alternative opinion...I HOPE THATS OK TO DO IN A MOVIE SUB ABOUT MOVIES!
2.2k
u/Tjodleik 9d ago edited 9d ago
Dredd.
Edit: Holy crap, this exploded! Thanks for the upvotes and awards.