Dredd

[Deepcrush]

What from Dredd is applicable for modern law enforcement?

I would guess the lessons being expressed to the cadet. Cut back the tech and its not very different from some of the inner cities I've had to work in. It even counts as peaceful next to South America, Africa or sections of Europe.

[Graham Kennedy]

What from Dredd is applicable for modern law enforcement?

You don't think that a system of justice in which police officers can declare criminals guilty on the spot and sentence them to prison, or even summarily execute them, has some bearing on the ethics of law enforcement?

Dredd was created in response to Dirty Harry. They took that "screw the rules, we know who the bad guys are so let's just GET them!" attitude and posed the question : would it really be a better world if the legal system worked that way?

[Deepcrush]

Not just that, but what if the system HAD to work that way.

[Mikey]

Agreed with GK and Deep. It's not as evident from the film, but as someone who's old enough to have read early Dredd in "2000 A.D.," the main theme wasn't "Look how friggin' cool this shit is!" Rather, it was a discerning look at whether that type of uncaring pragmatism in the prosecution of criminality wasn't, in fact, worse than the alternative.

[Deepcrush]

The issue comes up then how far do you go to maintain some form of order and what price are you willing to pay for the survival of the human race when conditions become less then simple.

[Graham Kennedy]

Agreed with GK and Deep. It's not as evident from the film, but as someone who's old enough to have read early Dredd in "2000 A.D.," the main theme wasn't "Look how friggin' cool this shit is!" Rather, it was a discerning look at whether that type of uncaring pragmatism in the prosecution of criminality wasn't, in fact, worse than the alternative.

To me, the best moment in the movie was when Anderson blew that guy away. Almost any film would have played that by having her hesitate, then do something like have him try to pull a gun or knife and go for her, so she's justified in shooting him. Or make the death accidental, which is even worse (see the first Spider Man movie and how Uncle ben's killer dies).

Dredd sets up the premise that there are times when the street judges really will have to put a bullet into a helpless person in cold blood... and then follows through on it! That's really what Dredd is supposed to be about, exploring that. Shame they wimped out on it a bit towards the end, though.

[Mikey]

Well, they couldn't really market a feature film - especially in the U.-S.-of-family-values-A. - with the raw themes that permeated 'Dredd in the 2000 A.D. comics. I think that Anderson's shooting of the perp was still somewhat mitigated by the virtual crimes that had been previously presented, so it still was a little "wimped out" compared to how it could have actually presented the Judge Dredd ethos.

Now, if the film went on to explore the ramifications of a Judge reacting to intentions or thoughts, it could have really gotten into some dark psychological places... but that wasn't the intent, and Philip K. Dick did it better anyway.

[Deepcrush]

Dredd sets up the premise that there are times when the street judges really will have to put a bullet into a helpless person in cold blood... and then follows through on it! That's really what Dredd is supposed to be about, exploring that. Shame they wimped out on it a bit towards the end, though.

The problem is that its not cold blooded killing. Its a matter of requirement, while he's defenseless now he won't be after you leave and he'll be another person you have to face down later. Combat has the same problems where you may take prisoners but if you can't risk bringing them along and can't release them. The only thing you can do is kill them and move along.

[Atekimogus]

Ok, I saw the movie now and I must admit I quite liked it and there where many good points. What I cannot do is compare it to the Stallone version, they are just way to different, I like both for what they are but I have trouble comparing them.

I quite liked that the story wasn't "epic". Too often they try to be epic and 9 out of 10 they just plain fail. Not so here, what it was is basically just another day in the life of a street judge. No huge conspiracy, no world shattering events, just a drugbust gone sour. Well done.
Urban suprised me. After McCoy I didn't think I could see him as Dredd, but he did a really good job. The Mutant subplot was sensibly handled and wasn't overplayed (and exactly when I was thinking "why the hell hasn't she a helmet on?" we even get an explanation why she didn't, what a rare piece of attention to detail in those days...cudos).


However the biggest failing of the movie (and I am not sure if it's really a "failing" as such) is imho, that at no point did I have the feeling I was watching a Sci-Fi movie. Maybe it is because in todays world of flatscreens, ipads etc. etc. it is really hard to come up with a Sci-Fi scenario which is acceptable for a smaller budget.

But if they hadn't called them judges but simple SWAT TEAM x (or any other police special force) and put different helmets on them, the movie would have worked exactly the same and noone would really have noticed (Except one or two judgements, the rest of the movie they were pretty much acting in self defense....). Now I am not sure if this is more the case of having not enough budget or just that simply the real world overtook the source material in the meantime but there you have it.

[Mikey]

The idea behind Judge Dredd, and the basis of that type of judge in general, is well-known enough to those familiar with the character. If I step back, I can see your point pertaining to people who are unfamiliar with Judge Dredd prior to seeing the film, and can understand a desire to get a bit more of the background painted; it does not, as you say, reduce the watchability of the movie.

[Mikey]

The idea behind Judge Dredd, and the basis of that type of judge in general, is well-known enough to those familiar with the character. If I step back, I can see your point pertaining to people who are unfamiliar with Judge Dredd prior to seeing the film, and can understand a desire to get a bit more of the background painted; it does not, as you say, reduce the watchability of the movie.

[Tyyr]

Lemme posit this question to you. What's really changed in the last fifty years? With regards to how people live? We still live in homes and apartments. We have bedrooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bathrooms. They are still all mostly set up the same. We still go to work for about eight hours, we drive cars, the kids go to school, ride buses. We eat three meals a day still at about the same times. TV is a bigger part of our lives but aside from going mostly color and getting flat what's different? Radio? Yeah. We have computers now but in many cases that's been integrated with the TV or serves as a slightly more interactive version. We have phones on us 24/7 but that's about it.

So in my personal opinion I'd rather see a future where everything is mostly the same than things radically changing, because they don't.

Not to mention I'm gonna venture that the nuclear apocalypse might have put a damper on consumer electronics innovation. Just saying.

[Mikey]

I thin that's why Dredd, in the original 2000 A.D. comics, worked - because it wasn't too fantastic for people to be unable to see it happening.

[McAvoy]

Lemme posit this question to you. What's really changed in the last fifty years? With regards to how people live? We still live in homes and apartments. We have bedrooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bathrooms. They are still all mostly set up the same. We still go to work for about eight hours, we drive cars, the kids go to school, ride buses. We eat three meals a day still at about the same times. TV is a bigger part of our lives but aside from going mostly color and getting flat what's different? Radio? Yeah. We have computers now but in many cases that's been integrated with the TV or serves as a slightly more interactive version. We have phones on us 24/7 but that's about it.

So in my personal opinion I'd rather see a future where everything is mostly the same than things radically changing, because they don't.

Not to mention I'm gonna venture that the nuclear apocalypse might have put a damper on consumer electronics innovation. Just saying.

How about the difference between 1912 and 1962? Bigger difference there.

Aside from computer technology which pretty much is saturated in our daily lives, not much has changed if at all.

[Tyyr]

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.