sauchieboy
Posts: 303
Joined: 31/7/2011 From: The City Of Sauchie
|
quote:
dreddhead123: 'The gore count in Dredd 2012 should be pretty high. It's going to be a tough action film so I'll be surprised if it gets a 15 rating, but you never know, stuff may be cut to lower the classification. May make sense to reduce the gore and appeal to a larger audience.' Timon: 'I know someone who is working on the Dredd FX and they told me some of the stuff they've been working on... and it's pretty graphic.' Interesting point, Scott. From what I understand, Judge Dredd (1995) was such a curiously bloodless affair because of Stallone's desire to turn it into a family film franchise (i). That's one of the reasons why that film has such an uneven tone: Maurice Roeves getting his throat shot out produces a feeble spritz of haemoglobin (ii), but when everyone else gets shot it's as exsanguinated as a game of Dead Man's Fall. Now that DNA have committed to making a mature audience Action-Shooter, it'd be crazy to try and neuter their film to widen its potential audience. I'm sure Dredd (2012) will enjoy (modest) theatrical success; but it's DVD sales, to the much narrower band of splatter-happy Action film fans, that represent the best chance of putting smiles on the faces of Dredd's investors (iii). (i) This kind of shite was in vogue in the early nineties. Schwarzenegger’s desire to pull in a kiddie audience for T2 was the reason behind his character swearing an oath not to kill anyone; and Sigourney Weaver's got to shoulder some of the blame for Alien 3, after insisting all the Marines' cool firepower be left in the wreckage of the Sulaco for ideological reasons. (ii) Compare that to Colin MacNeil's depiction of Total War's execution of a Judge in the definitive Dredd story America. That guy's head explodes like a fucking melon, and I picked my copy of that comic up from the same shelf as The People's Friend. (iii) Actually, my understanding is that the money from selling the distribution rights has covered production costs.
|