3. Faithful To The Source Material
The 1995 Stallone outing as Judge Dredd is ridiculed for a number of reasons. You watch it and the grittiness of the comic has been replaced by ''comedy'' with Rob Schneider and Gianni Versace designed costumes. It went too far trying to please the mainstream audience and forgot about all the things that make Judge Dredd an interesting character beyond his outfit and him shouting ''I AM THE LAAWWW.'' It appears that Stallone understands the reasons why his version failed;
I loved that property when I read it, because it took a genre that I love, what you could term the 'action morality film' and made it a bit more sophisticated. It had political overtones. It showed how if we don't curb the way we run our judicial system, the police may end up running our lives. It dealt with archaic governments; it dealt with cloning and all kinds of things that could happen in the future. It was also bigger than any film I've done in its physical stature and the way it was designed. All the people were dwarfed by the system and the architecture; it shows how insignificant human beings could be in the future. There's a lot of action in the movie and some great acting, too. It just wasn't balls to the wall. But I do look back on Judge Dredd as a real missed opportunity. It seemed that lots of fans had a problem with Dredd removing his helmet, because he never does in the comic books. But for me it is more about wasting such great potential there was in that idea; just think of all the opportunities there were to do interesting stuff with the Cursed Earth scenes. It didn't live up to what it could have been. It probably should have been much more comic, really humorous, and fun. What I learned out of that experience was that we shouldn't have tried to make it Hamlet; it's more Hamlet and Eggs...
In other words, the film was trying too hard. John Wagner, creator of Dredd said this about the 1995 movie;
They told the wrong story it didnt have that much to do with Dredd the character as we know him. I dont think Stallone was a bad Dredd, though it would have been better and lent him more cred if he hadnt revealed his face. He was just Dredd in the wrong story. I envy their budget, though. Some of the CGI was very good, and the re-creations of the Angel Gang and the robot. The robot actually came from a Pat Mills story and didnt belong in Dredd, but it looked good. If the plot had revolved around characters like them the film would have been more successful.
If the person who invented the Dredd universe doesn't give the film any credibility, then you know you are doing something wrong. Compare that to Wagner's comments about the 2012 version of Dredd;
The plot is about Dredd and his world. Its impossible to cover every aspect of the character and his city perhaps that was one of the failings of the first film; they tried to do too much and ended up with not a lot. Dredd homes in on the essential job of judging instant justice in a violent future city. I like the actors, theyre well cast and they handled their parts well. Olivia Thirlby is perfect as Anderson, the young psi judge. She gives the character a touching vulnerability. Karl Urban will not remove his helmet and will not kiss his costar.
Wagner knows what Dredd is about more than anyone, so if he gives the reboot his stamp of approval, then the writer and director have done what fans of the franchise want. A faithful adaptation of the comic they love. Just wait for the backlash when Michael Bay ruins the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for a great example of how deviating from the source material can have a negative effect. Like an old school Verhoeven classic, Dredd didn't try to be more than it was. The violence that is a staple of the comic was uncompromising and the main character was not tweaked and remained recognizable. Ok, maybe the film could have had a bit more satire but it done more than enough to keep its core fan base happy and excite newbies into reading 2000AD.