How Dredd Laid Down What SHOULD be the New Blueprints for at least Half of all Comic Book Movie Adaptations

How Dredd Laid Down What SHOULD be the New Blueprints for at least Half of all Comic Book Movie Adaptations

Albie analyzes how and why the new Dredd, intentionally or not, laid down what should (but won't) be the new blueprints for the vast majority of superhero movies.

This is something I wouldn't have expected to write at all, for a few different reasons. First, and let me just get this out of the way right now: I was never a big fan of Judge Dredd. He was always one of those characters I knew of on the periphery, but growing up going to comic book shops in small town, Canada, 2000 A.D. was a rare find, and simultaneously still something barely anyone knew of here before the Stallone movie, so you'd have to spend as much as it would cost for two or three Batmans to instead gamble on 2000 A.D., with Judge Dredd in his oddly colourful costume considering how violent the rest of the cover would be. (If I'm entirely honest, I was originally under the impression that this new Dredd still starred Stallone, that's how out-of-touch with Dredd I am. It made sense in my head at first, y'know, Stallone just did a new Rocky, a new Rambo, I figured he could've just done a new Dredd, too, right? Yeah, I know, I know.)

And second, let's skip straight to why Dredd won't be seen as the nearly-Mad-Libs-level-efficient blueprints that they are: Dredd was a financial turd in theaters. Can't do anything about it now, but with a total production cost of $45 million, but a profit of $36 million from both North America and internationally combined, if there's going to be any continuing of this Dredd franchise, it'll either have to be backed by a really long-odds gambler, or it'll have to be a way indie-er production that can only really, really hope to get investors to pool together at least $2 million for a tiny crew, some lights, and about two weeks of time on a lot. And it certainly won't be used as blueprints by anyone else, simply because who hires a screenwriter that, in the job interview/first meeting, starts off with, "You know what I was thinking? We should use this movie that lost $10 million as a framework for our movie!" Nobody, that's who. Does how much a movie profits ever really indicate the quality of the movie itself, though? Wait, why am I asking that kind of bullshit question here?

Now let's get to the meat of it: Coming from a script writer, this is how Dredd lays down what should be the new blueprints for almost every comic book movie adaptation.

What's the first thing that happens in Dredd? Do we meet Dredd as a kid and watch him grow into Judge Dredd, do we start with him as a teenager in the judge academy, what's the origin story we start with to develop the character? I'll tell you what, it's non-existent, Dredd cuts you straight into the action. Through voice-over, it vaguely touches on really more of his own internal hatred than his origin, but it's somewhere in between the two, and it gets two things done straight away: Number one, it doesn't even let you take time to wonder if Dredd is gonna be fun to watch with a twenty minute or longer first act origin story before we really get to the movie, we go straight to Dredd and get just as much of his origin as we need while we go along; and number two, it lets people who aren't already into Dredd get the good stuff right away and get his origins as almost more of a reward for going along for the ride.

Think about it this way: When you meet someone who's never heard of Batman (well, if is probably more accurate than when, but go along with me here), do you start introducing him by going, "Okay, so there's this rich family in Gotham City, and they have a butler named Alfred. The rich family, the Waynes, right, the dad is Thomas, huge businessman and founder/owner/CEO of Wayne Enterprises, then his mom, I always forget her name, then their son, Bruce Wayne, who later becomes Batman, but hold on! First the family goes to the theater, and then when they're leaving, a mugger stops them..." Of course not! You go, "You don't know Batman?! Batman is the shit, he dresses like a bat, has both ninja and detective training, awesome gadgets, he's self-loathing and self-destructive..." and you give them the whole origin later! There's a big lesson a lot of comic book movie adaptations and superhero movies in general need to learn, especially now with all the pushes for movies featuring characters with really a barely-existent mainstream fanbase (a Guardians of the Galaxy movie before bothering to make a decent Punisher movie, Marvel? Really?)

What else does Dredd do that needs to be taken as a lesson? Keeps the characters to a minimum. There's Dredd, the psychic, Mama, Dredd's temporary hostage, kind of, and that's about it. There's other judges and shit on the periphery, but we never get sidetracked or wrapped up in unnecessary exposure to characters there isn't time to develop anyway. Dredd makes its choices early and sticks the hell by them.

And those two lessons, hero first, boring origin later, and stick the hell by the choices you make early in the script, somehow still don't seem to have been learned by most comic book movie adaptations; the new Spiderman movie leaps to mind, as well as the slightly older Spiderman movies, for that matter.

(Post-Script: Okay, but what's my full opinion of Dredd, right? Are you kidding? It's basically just The Raid: Redemption, but starring Dredd, a dead sexy psychic judge, and a way bigger budget, what's not to love? It could still benefit from being tightened up time-wise due to the minimal story, but it works plenty fine as it is, and the third bonus lesson it kind of teaches is more a reminder that simple stand-alone stories still work best on-screen as opposed to long-winded franchises like Terminator that burn out over time and being in so many different hands each time. And the franchise route is where all these comic book movies are heading--why not a franchise where every movie is a stand-alone adventure? You wouldn't have nearly the same pressure of needing to keep juggling all the same characters/storylines/misc. details established in the first movie while switching writers and directors from movie to movie, and nowhere even close to the same risk of alienating or driving away the audience when they're not expecting to have to see all the movies in a franchise in order to enjoy just one. Look at James Bond--you think that's the only serial character who could pull off that kind of a franchise of all stand-alone movies? C'mon.)
Posted By:
Member Since 12/27/2012
Filed Under "Judge Dredd" 12/29/2012 Source: More of Albie's Rants HERE
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
aresww3 - 12/29/2012, 4:02 AM
I like origin stories, when the origin is something interesting and worth updating, but not when its rebooted within 5 years.
I think characters like James Bond and Judge Dredd, are better for having a certain mystique, or Hannibal Lecter for instance. It has more impact when their back story isn´t fully disclosed. But characters like Batman and Superman or Hulk or Wonder Woman, have such rich backstories that are worthy of modernising as they can be told in new and interesting ways relevent to the times we live in, I think therefore its worth telling the story. Its like how we treat mythical figures like Hercules or Akiles. Their origin is almost the most important part of their story.
LEEE777 - 12/29/2012, 4:24 AM
DREDD was a cool movie, enjoyed it! ;)

Origins are eventually going to kill off the characters or franchises, you can only tell a origin to the same character for so long before Joe Public has had enough and goes Frick Off :p

All franchises should be made like the BOND movies, keep 'em fresh for their generation's, simple and works!

I for one will not be looking forward to yet another BATMAN origin on film... if WB has the brains they'll scrap that and just worry about how to do Bats in the JLA movie. When doing another Bat franchise forget the origin, use new untapped supervillain's and keep it fresh, use flashbacks if you must, but that's it.

Also get them WW, FLASH even HAWKWORLD/MAN movies out!

P.S. The new ROBOCOP looks like a pile of sh1Te

Cool read thumbs
CorndogBurglar - 12/29/2012, 5:06 AM
Its such a shame that the crap Stallone movie pretty much doomed this one to failure.

I thought Dredd was awesome. Now we probably wont get a sequel because people just didnt know anything about Judge Dredd aside from Stallone's craptastic movie.
Albie - 12/29/2012, 9:29 AM
The root of my point is really not that origins should be skipped altogether, just that the origin of a character is nine times out of ten a really unnecessarily boring way to introduce them, especially to people less familiar with them.

Of course origins are important, but it's like having to eat your vegetables before the rest of dinner when the origin is always the first half hour of every superhero movie.

Whereas when you introduce someone to Batman and start in with the awesome shit, whoever it is you're introducing to Batman gets curiouser and curiouser about his origin, and that earnest curiosity and tension is something the audience should feel about a character's origin. You get zero percent of that curiosity and tension when the origin is the opening act. Plus then we all have to wait an extra half hour to actually see the superhero part of a superhero movie.
superbatspiderman - 12/29/2012, 10:02 AM
Origins are only good when it is in a movie that is the first of its kind.I don't want to see the origins of a character that everyone and their mothers know and we have seen many times. That was probably my least favorite part of The Amazing Spider-Man them showing me the origins. Only do origins when it is the characters first outing in movies like Iron Man and Captain America.
LEEE777 - 12/29/2012, 10:07 AM
AC1 - 12/29/2012, 3:00 PM
The reason Dredd didn't need the origins is because his origins aren't an important part of his character. He just IS Judge Dredd, in fact he pretty much has no personal life whatsoever.

It works many different ways - in a film like Batman Begins, the origin part is actually the stronger part of the movie as it's essentially a character study; an in depth look into Bruce Wayne's psychology. On the other hand, a character like the Hulk might not need his origins excessively retold, as he's essentially an accident and the main story is of him trying to find peace. Nothing really interesting happens to him before he's Hulk (at least, nothing that can't be explained in a couple of flash backs). Then a character like Nick Fury, who doesn't need his origins explained as he's not a central character and works better as a mystery. A character like Superman might need some sort of an origin told, to explain why he's different (at least some pre-Superman stuff would be needed, even if it wasn't the whole Krypton blowing up, rocket crashing shit).

@SUPERBATSPIDERMAN origins can be important no matter what outing it is for a character, as many origins can be told in different ways, and as such be used to differentiate two versions of a character and also set up a different path for a new version (while a lot of the content in Amazing Spider-Man did seem rehashed, redoing the origin was the right way to go as it set up something of a conspiracy surrounding his parents, which seems to be the framework around which the trilogy will be made). You could actually tell Spider-Man or Batman's origins in a number of different ways that could help create unique versions of a character, shape the trajectory of a series, etc.
AC1 - 12/29/2012, 3:02 PM
Also, what must be taken into consideration is the fact that Superhero movies are a trend. Eventually they will die down. Then, when they resurface (like all trends do) origins will become immensely important in introducing new audiences to old characters who won't have necessarily bothered to watch the older superhero movies.
KnobGoblin - 12/31/2012, 4:44 PM
Blade did the same thing, in that it dropped the audience directly into the action in the opening sequence, and we only get a brief origin told to us by Whistler in the second act of the movie.

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.