sauchieboy
Posts: 303
Joined: 31/7/2011 From: The City Of Sauchie
|
quote:
Invader_Ace: Bit will he still be a clone?! Marwood: See that's an interesting thought - if the film plays down crazier sci-fi elements in favour of something with more of a recent apocalypse timeline then cloning may be too far out there to be a feature. In that case...who is Dredd? Down this path madness lies, Marwood. Some folks over yorn at 2000adonline are so earnest about the implications of the altered timeline and the internal logic of DNA's film adaptation that they've speculated Judge Death will have to be reinvented as a Cursed Earth mutant- rather than a dimension-hopping zombie- if he features in any possible sequels to Dredd (2012). Because mutant powers are more realistic (i)? The film and the comic are two completely seperate things and I'm fine with the fact that the creative decisions taken by DNA have been influenced as much by their budget as by their vision. Dredd has been portrayed in so many different ways that anyone can cite precedent for their own interpretation of either his uniform (ii), his city (iii), or his psychology (iv) without having to post-rationalise it as Dredd Begins. I think the aspects of the Dredd strip that would make any film adaptation a unique and original cinematic proposition are precisely those that address the implications of Dredd's cloned DNA (v) and the extremities of his politics (vi), but I don't imagine Dredd (2012) is going to do more than hint at either. Again, DNA can make reference to the fact that Dredd's parentage was hardly referenced for the strip's first decade (vii). If this year's reboot doesn't have to detail the many uses of Boing (TM), it doesn't necessarily have to mention Dredd's daddy issues either. (i) As far as the large sample surveys of the residents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl indicate; all radiation exposure does is make you nauseous and give birth to kids that look like God snapped off too many limbs from the Airfix kit that made you. No healing factors or psychic powers have been reported at Fukushima yet, either. (ii) Carlos Ezquerra's designs for the early versions of Dredd's regs in Origins (1505-1535)- essentially the bike courier from the Zovirax adverts- would have worked on film and they would have satisfied geek demands for comic authenticity. My own preference for a budget, 'real world' Dredd uniform would have been for Mel Gibson's leathers and body armour from Mad Max 2, with something like Frankenstein from Death Race 2000's matte black helmet (the original visual reference John Wagner gave to Carlos) incorporating the comics' visor and noseguard X. (iii) Brian Bolland and the great Ron Smith drew MC1 as enormous Empire State-style skyscrapers, rather than Mick McMahon's brilliant and unprecedented pepperpot/GI Helmet designs; while definitive Dredd artist Carlos Ezquerra's take on the city is more organic. (iv) The producers of the Stallone film were able to point to the first three years of the strip, where Dredd was portrayed as an uncomplicated hero, as justification for their bastardising of The Day The Law Died (89-108); just as the new film can point towards Ezquerra and McMahon's underwhelming early strips as precedent for their take on the character's uniform. (v) Bloodline (583-584), Tale of the Deadman (662-668) and Tour of Duty (1520-1693) (vi) Revolution (531-533), America (Megazine 1-7, 20-25), Terror (1392-1399) and Total War (1408-1419) (vii) Outside Pat Mills's Return of Rico (30), and the continuity nightmare of Vienna (116) Dredd's in vitro origins are the elephant in the room nobody sees fit to mention for ten years. The first indication that Dredd poured forth from Fargo's loins was a passing mention in the Judda strain of the mega-epic Oz (545-570). And, until Letter From A Democrat (460), Dredd's fascism wasn't explicitly addressed either.
< Message edited by sauchieboy -- 11/1/2012 6:36:49 PM >
|