Dredd

[McAvoy]

Not really. What really changed between 1912 and 1962? Introduction of TV, regular home refrigeration and... umm... cars? Still, life was basically the same still. Some of the accoutrements have changed but instead of reading or listening to the radio you'd watch TV. Trips to the market could be a once or twice a week thing instead of daily, and trips to work could be longer. The basic fabric of life? Not so much.

Not entirely. Not everyone had a car or even mass transportation or power or a fridge. 1912 had the beginnings of what we would call modern life but that was only for the more developed areas of the country.

People still broke their backs working longer hours. A lot of that work would go towards basic survival and not luxury items. Radio wasn't was as prevalent as it would be twenty years later. Movies were a novelty. Cars were still extremely primitive and the road system was non existent. Schooling was different. Military was different.

[Jim]

Post WW2 was an explosion in way of life. In general, more homes, morre cars, highways, baby boom etc... Technological advances brought about because of research during the war change al ot of thing. Society and daily life in 1950 was very different than in 1935. The world today is much more "A.D.H.D." than in 1950, but I think there was actualyl a bigger life change between 1935 and 1950 than between 1950 and now...

[McAvoy]

That is my point. 1913 to 1963 was a huge change over 1963 to 2013. In fact 1913 was a period of transition anyway. Coal firing ships to oil burning. Turbines over reciprocating engines. Cars over horses. Electricity over well anything.

I mean if you really think about it, someone from 1963 wouldn't have as much of an issue than someone from 1913.

[Tyyr]

See, you're wrong. You're focused on small differences. Yes, small. 1912 Was not universally modern but that's not even the benchmark. "Modern" is false. The actual way we live our lives changes incredibly slowly.

The form of entertainment matters very little. Books, dolls, cards, games, radio, it's all just the current method by which we stimulate our senses in a pleasurable way. People used free time after work to enjoy themselves and their loved ones. Has the amount of free time we have increased? Sure. Has what we do with it changed a lot? Not really. In 1912 you might shoot the shit with your friends on the stoop or at the pub. We're doing the same thing here.

Work, you still work. The type of work is different but it's still work. If you didn't get out and work your job in 1913 you didn't have the money or things you needed to take care of yourself and your family and guess what, same thing today. Do I bust my ass in a field for 14 hours? No, but I'm still doing something that I specialize in in order to secure the goods and services my family needs. Maybe not to the hours that some used to, but it still has to happen.

Cars are little more than a method to get from one place to another. Fundamentally little different from horses or our own feet aside from speed and range. You can go farther, faster, and that's let our cities and communities grow MUCH larger but it's still mostly the same.

School has barely changed at all in the last 100 years. Prior to about 150 years ago almost all schooling was done in the home with some being handled by others, often the church. Very few recieved any education beyond what was needed to carry on the family business though that did change some with more and more being taught to read, write, and do basic math. Then the idea of sending your kids to a dedicated teacher caught on and hasn't really evolved all that much.

The military is about as ancient an institution as you can possibly imagine. It's about as unchanging as El Capitan. Compare the militaries of 2013 to 1913 to 1713 to 13. It's a system frozen in human culture. You have the foot soldiers at the bottom who report to a successive heirarchy of superiors each with less tactical emphasis and more strategic emphasis until you have a singular commander at the top. Sometimes it's a nations ruler, sometimes they report to a nation's ruler. You have your average foot soldier, armed and armored to a standard set by their superiors with standardized gear mass manufactured for their use. You have some specialized troops able to engage the enemy at long range. Some fast ranging troops for flanking and raiding. Even the introduction of the first navy changed little as the existant army structure was applied to warships just with the smallest division now being individiual ships. The biggest fundamental change to the military was about in 1907 when aircraft were introduced and it took them damn near fifty years to just get out from under the army. And again, the same structure was largely followed.

Lemme posit this to explain my idea here. If you were to pluck a roman Centurion out of his Legion in 100 AD and drop him into the middle of an infantry division sitting on the Iraqi border in 1991 how long do you think it would take him to figure things out? I'm not even giving him the ability ot speak English. Motherfucker still speaks Latin. Personally, I think it would take him about five minutes. The structure of the military hasn't changed. It's goals have changed little. Give the guy a few days and he could probably lead a company of foot soldiers into battle fairly proficiently.

Same thing, pull a Knight from about 1350 and drop him in the middle of an armored division. For fun we'll make him German. He'd probably need a bit more time since feudalism actually did shake up SOME of the tenants of the military a bit but again, within a few days he would have little to no trouble grasping the military he was now placed in and the role of armor.

Hell, go back through any aspect of that and how long would it take you to get what's going on in a one room school in 1860? A bar in 1945?

Human society is inherently resistant to change. For all our talk of innovation, advancement, and progress the only thing we've really managed to change about the way we live in the last 2,000 years is to increase the amount of free time we have, and to be able to travel greater distances in our day to day lives.

So when I watch sci-fi if I can't grasp how people go about their daily lives in a matter of seconds it starts to irk me because fundamentally we have changed little and something that violates the way we live masquerading as progress is probably poorly thought out.

[McAvoy]

Well go back 100,000 years ago we had BBQs! 10,000 years ago we had buildings and even roads and ships. Writing and even laws.

You can go back as far as you want and find similarities if you want. Roman roads and the system is nearly identical to current roads, just the material is different.

However, the small things are still significant if you add them all together. 1913 there was the bare basic computers which were mechanical. Militaries treated their enlisted much differently. Even officers were still being treated like royalty. Nowadays the difference between an enlisted and an officer is a college degree on basket weaving.

Cars were not widespread and there were no roads. Which meant the world was still big and still took time to get to certain places where as I can drove 1000 miles in about a day. You couldn't do that in 1913. That is a huge difference.

Planes were barely flyable in 1913. Planes now are huge and carry practically anything it can fit inside it. Planes have made the world even smaller.

Militarily we had rockets, jets and missiles and even advanced forms of hand held guns. Remember it was a big deal to have a Colt 1911. That gun has been mimicked all over the world.

The US wasn't even nearly as developed as it was in 1913. For many places like the mid West it might as well be the Civil War era. Consumerism was still relatively new but growing fast.

There are a lot of things that people in 1963 had that people in 1913 would have never thought up.

Yeah sure you plug any of them into certain situations they will adapt. Humans with technology doesn't change the humans to be smarter. Humans from 100,000 years ago are as smart as we are.

[Tyyr]

It's not about finding similarities. It's about the basic way we live.

10,000 years ago people walked to where they worked, where they lived, where they shopped, and occasionally where they recreated.
500 years ago people rode horses or took wagons to where they worked, where they lived, where they shopped, and occasionally where they recreated.
Today we drive cars to where we worked, where we live, where we shop, and where we recreate.

Really, what's the difference? Our method of conveyance has improved increasing the range at which we can do these things but what has radically changed? Car, horse, foot, it's all just a method of transportation to allow us to get from point to another. All that technological advancement and all it's really accomplished is to increase how far we can go per unit time. We still use it for the same purpose. Heck, we still measure trips not by miles but by time. How long will it take us to get there? The only difference is how much distance we can cover per that unit time. Larger groups can now live together and interact making countries like the US possible but the US vs. a Grecian city state, what's the difference? One's just bigger.

However, the small things are still significant if you add them all together.

Wrong. The small things are static. They're background noise in the realm of human existence. I've grown up in the time where we went to each family had a telephone, probably on a cord, a TV, and a radio, to now when my own house has two TV's, a computer, a laptop, three tablets, and two phones neither of which has a cord and are each it's own mini-computer. And what's really changed? Not much. Massive technological revolution and our lives are still pretty much the same. The kids still watch cartoons on TV the only real change there is that a DVR means they watch what they want when they want. They still go and play with each other it's just that occasionally they get to play on a tablet. The wife and I still watch TV together though when we can't find something we both want to watch I'll read a book on my tablet instead of a hardcopy of it.

Militarily we had rockets, jets and missiles and even advanced forms of hand held guns. Remember it was a big deal to have a Colt 1911. That gun has been mimicked all over the world.

So? It's a weapon. Rock, spear, sword, bow, flintlock, M1911A1, death ray, they're all doing the same job for the same reasons. The details are changing, but the core facts are the same. We still need weapons to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and what matters to us from those that would do us harm. We've gotten a bit more sophisticated about it than the ass's jaw Cain used to kill Able but we're still finding ourselves killing each other, the number of moving parts in what we use to do it just keeps going up.

The US wasn't even nearly as developed as it was in 1913. For many places like the mid West it might as well be the Civil War era. Consumerism was still relatively new but growing fast.

And today we've got places in the world that are still at a stone age level of development. What's your point? Consumerism isn't new. Since the dawn of time people have wanted things, things beyond their basic needs. The only real change is that our improved technology has allowed us more leisure time to enjoy those things, and our prosperity has allowed more people to collect more stuff but what about that is changing the basics of how we live?

There are a lot of things that people in 1963 had that people in 1913 would have never thought up.

That's not exactly new. We have no idea what they'll have thought up in 2063. The future being an unknown is a constant.

I don't think you're getting my basic argument. What about human nature and what about how we live has really changed? That's my point. Human life has been relatively static for the last 10,000 years, probably longer. As much as our technology has advanced we are still humans, the same as the ancient Babylonians, living our lives in much the same manner. Creature comforts have increased, we tend to have more free time, but in the end human life is human life. So when you watch sci-fi be suspicious of anything that radically changes how people live.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm with Tyyr on this; that is one of the basic principles I use in my sci-fi. Even 1,000 years from now, people will still be people; barring some cosmetic changes like fashions or holographic tattoos, maybe some cybernetic augmentation or genetic manipulation, people won't 'evolve' in 1,000 years much more than we did in the last 1,000. Our basic concerns and routines will just be variations on the same ones we've always had. You might have to remember to take your daily radiation tablets or put on a breathing apparatus to go outside, but there's not much (barring the Singularity) that will change our lives that much.

[IanKennedy]

Comeing late to this discussion, but I would argue that things are different now than they were even 100 years ago. The key difference is distance. In the past people lived their entire life out in one place, they grew up there they worked there they met and bred there and died there. The thought of traveling 100 miles would be totally alien to them. Consequently the differences in society where much broader than they are today. You could argue that that scale doesn't matter, but it does. It exposes you to a far wider set of people and their ways of life. It's a significant factor in why the Muslim world is under going significant change at the moment. Previously they had their way of life and "Government" and that was it, there was no alternative. Now they are exposed, on a daily basis via TV and the likes, to a much more open culture and to things like democracy. It's a significant force that has lead to a massive change in that region of the world. A similar change is underway in China. There people have started to own companies of their own and start earning money from places outside of the 5 year plan. It has lead to quiet a change in mind set. We run a study in China and we have seen a change in the few years that we've been there. It used to be that you did what the government told you to and that was it. Now, everyone is out for maximizing their income.

I think the problem from the US point of view, as well as the UK one for that matter, is that we are the ones that already have the systems that are changing so much elsewhere. It means that we don't see as easily the changes that are rife elsewhere in the world. That doesn't mean that there aren't changes in our countries over the last few hundred years. Live expectancies are huge now compared to then, the concept of retirement didn't even exist as none but the exceptionally rich could ever afford to stop working, or even live long enough to do so.

The internet is also a massive change in the way the world works. 200 years ago if you wanted to talk to someone is America you wrote a letter, which would go on a ship and get there in several months, the response would take just as long to return. Now I can order an item from China on eBay and have it within a few days. Communication is instant (or nearly so) and is one of the major reasons that things like the changes in the Muslim world have actually happened. Organizing revolt has become possible without mass meetings out in the open, or even in dark rooms.

[Graham Kennedy]

There is a certain irony in a group of people from across the world discussing whether the world has greatly changed in the last century, when a century ago we wouldn't even have the means to have this conversation with one another.

In a sense I agree with everyone. Yes, the absolute fundamentals of life haven't changed and likely won't change. 1,000 years ago people lived in dwellings, they worked to earn money to buy food and the luxury stuff they wanted, they tried to find a nice girl (or guy) to settle down with and have kids and be happy. And 1,000 years from now people may well live in dwellings, and work to earn money to buy food and the luxury stuff they want (sorry, Gene, but they probably will), and will try to find a nice girl (or guy) to settle down with and have kids and be happy.

But the differences, whilst they are variations on a theme, are nevertheless pretty damn huge. Throwing an ICBM at somebody is fundamentally the same thing as throwing a rock at them, in that both are weapons that kill at a distance. But the change in scale of killing a guy 30 feet away with a rock and killing a whole city 10,000 miles away with a missile is a pretty huge and significant one. The ICBM has reshaped the nature of war, which itself is one of the fundamental facets of humanity. It may even have made possible - and ironically, perhaps simultaneously prevented - the extinction of the human species.

For me, I think the technology with the most potential for altering our future in fundamental ways is biological. We're just starting to grasp the fundamentals of our own biology and how they work. That is something no prior civilisation has ever really had, in any form. Another century or two of progress on that front and we will truly be able to reshape what it means to be human in very fundamental ways, producing a species that may not really be human in any way we would recognise.

[Atekimogus]

I don't think you're getting my basic argument. What about human nature and what about how we live has really changed? That's my point. Human life has been relatively static for the last 10,000 years, probably longer. As much as our technology has advanced we are still humans, the same as the ancient Babylonians, living our lives in much the same manner. Creature comforts have increased, we tend to have more free time, but in the end human life is human life. So when you watch sci-fi be suspicious of anything that radically changes how people live.

I agree with what you are saying basically, but in regards to DREDD the movies you are wrong. Sure the way of live doesn't change radically but nevertheless, the LOOK and FEEL of it does change and is most important for a visual medium like a movie.

Can you spot an 80ies move just by the look of womens hairstyles? Sure you can. Can you spot a movie set in the 50ies, 60ies or 90ies, hell name the decade? Sure you can, that is because while the basics of our life didn't change, all those small but HIGHLY visible things like acceptable hairstyles, clothing, ways to talk etc. etc. change all the time.

And that was my one and only complaint about the Dredd movie. It largely used contemporary weapons, the Judges uniform or armor (don't know if it has a specific name) looks contemporary, the CARS (sure it's a budget thing but 50 years from now they still drive the same vans?) look contemporary, if it wasn't for a bunch of trickshots showing the city and the few shoots of a slightly larger than normal sky-skraper...........one could totally forget that this is supposed to be sci-fi and non a contemporary cop-movie.

[Graham Kennedy]

And that was my one and only complaint about the Dredd movie. It largely used contemporary weapons, the Judges uniform or armor (don't know if it has a specific name) looks contemporary, the CARS (sure it's a budget thing but 50 years from now they still drive the same vans?) look contemporary, if it wasn't for a bunch of trickshots showing the city and the few shoots of a slightly larger than normal sky-skraper...........one could totally forget that this is supposed to be sci-fi and non a contemporary cop-movie.

This is very true, but to me it really highlights the difference between this and Stallone's Dredd.

Stallone had the budget to do a genuinely futuristic Mega City One, with all the props and cool stuff. But the movie sucked balls, because the story and characters are terrible.

This movie more or less filmed in a contemporary setting and just called it Mega City One, with a shot here and there to try and sell it as the future. But the movie is good anyway, because the story and characters are pretty compelling.

[Tyyr]

I agree with what you are saying basically, but in regards to DREDD the movies you are wrong. Sure the way of live doesn't change radically but nevertheless, the LOOK and FEEL of it does change and is most important for a visual medium like a movie.

No, I'm not wrong. You know why? Because no one seems to be remembering that the world of Judge Dredd went through a nuclear-fucking-apocalypse. The entire population of the East Coast isn't crowded into Mega City one because of a cheap cost of living, it's because everywhere else is a radioactive wasteland. On top of that massive automation has left most of the population unemployed.

[Mikey]

I don't think you're getting my basic argument. What about human nature and what about how we live has really changed? That's my point. Human life has been relatively static for the last 10,000 years, probably longer. As much as our technology has advanced we are still humans, the same as the ancient Babylonians, living our lives in much the same manner. Creature comforts have increased, we tend to have more free time, but in the end human life is human life. So when you watch sci-fi be suspicious of anything that radically changes how people live.

I agree with what you are saying basically, but in regards to DREDD the movies you are wrong. Sure the way of live doesn't change radically but nevertheless, the LOOK and FEEL of it does change and is most important for a visual medium like a movie.

Can you spot an 80ies move just by the look of womens hairstyles? Sure you can. Can you spot a movie set in the 50ies, 60ies or 90ies, hell name the decade? Sure you can, that is because while the basics of our life didn't change, all those small but HIGHLY visible things like acceptable hairstyles, clothing, ways to talk etc. etc. change all the time.

And that was my one and only complaint about the Dredd movie. It largely used contemporary weapons, the Judges uniform or armor (don't know if it has a specific name) looks contemporary, the CARS (sure it's a budget thing but 50 years from now they still drive the same vans?) look contemporary, if it wasn't for a bunch of trickshots showing the city and the few shoots of a slightly larger than normal sky-skraper...........one could totally forget that this is supposed to be sci-fi and non a contemporary cop-movie.

Remember, the character of Judge Dredd was introduced in a publication called 2000 A.D. In case you were wondering, that date references a time 13 years ago. Even back when the comic was first written, Judge Dredd was not supposed to take place in a radical SF milieu. Further, the newer film version makes very good use of the familiarity of the environment to highlight the uncomfortable closeness of our own society with that of the fictional world - a feat that would otherwise be very difficult to do with just dialogue.

And that was my one and only complaint about the Dredd movie. It largely used contemporary weapons, the Judges uniform or armor (don't know if it has a specific name) looks contemporary, the CARS (sure it's a budget thing but 50 years from now they still drive the same vans?) look contemporary, if it wasn't for a bunch of trickshots showing the city and the few shoots of a slightly larger than normal sky-skraper...........one could totally forget that this is supposed to be sci-fi and non a contemporary cop-movie.

This is very true, but to me it really highlights the difference between this and Stallone's Dredd.

Stallone had the budget to do a genuinely futuristic Mega City One, with all the props and cool stuff. But the movie sucked balls, because the story and characters are terrible.

This movie more or less filmed in a contemporary setting and just called it Mega City One, with a shot here and there to try and sell it as the future. But the movie is good anyway, because the story and characters are pretty compelling.

Believe it or not, the story from the Stallone/Assante film very closely follows a story arc from the comic.

[Atekimogus]

I agree with what you are saying basically, but in regards to DREDD the movies you are wrong. Sure the way of live doesn't change radically but nevertheless, the LOOK and FEEL of it does change and is most important for a visual medium like a movie.

No, I'm not wrong. You know why? Because no one seems to be remembering that the world of Judge Dredd went through a nuclear-fucking-apocalypse. The entire population of the East Coast isn't crowded into Mega City one because of a cheap cost of living, it's because everywhere else is a radioactive wasteland. On top of that massive automation has left most of the population unemployed.

Very true.

So.....shouldn't it look a bit differnent from todays world? I am not sure I get what you are trying to say here since that was basically my one small critique of the movie. It didn't look like a world after nuclear holocaust etc. etc. etc.

But Dredd looks and feels pretty contemporary to me, as I said, a great movie, but you could forget that it is supposed to be Sci-Fi.

Remember, the character of Judge Dredd was introduced in a publication called 2000 A.D. In case you were wondering, that date references a time 13 years ago. Even back when the comic was first written, Judge Dredd was not supposed to take place in a radical SF milieu. Further, the newer film version makes very good use of the familiarity of the environment to highlight the uncomfortable closeness of our own society with that of the fictional world - a feat that would otherwise be very difficult to do with just dialogue.

A very good point I have to say. I admit I am not familiar with the source material (never coud get into comics for same reason) but having seen the Stallone version (which is very ok imho, just mindless summer-movie popcorn fun) one would expect a more unique style.


But please, as I said multiple times, this is only a very small critique I had and should not distract from that this was easily one of the better movies I have seen recently, a true underdog gem imho and a shame it didn't seem to do so well in the boxoffice, this one is easily deserving of a sequel.

[Graham Kennedy]

Believe it or not, the story from the Stallone/Assante film very closely follows a story arc from the comic.

Which goes to show that comics can have terrible stories too.