Jump to content

Talk:Dredd/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Synopsis

The entire synopsis section is cut-and-pasted from another website. Richard75 (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Trailer

'Mixed reaction'? Verification? 92.29.229.123 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Where to begin? Google "DREDD TRAILER" for a start! And if you look carefully, I've provided at least one prominent source. Famousdog (c) 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Dredd 3D

It seems this is now going to be called Dredd 3D, according to IMDB, the official movie website dreddthemovie.com, and the latest Judge Dredd Megazine. I propose to move this page to Dredd 3D but am giving notice here first in case anyone thinks there is insufficient evidence and wants to object. Richard75 (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually since even the movie poster used to illustrate this article says Dredd 3D, I have been bold and done it. Richard75 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the top line of the detailed credits on this, says "Dredd". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Rich, why when I've posted the poster with credits saying it is called "Dredd" have you proceeded to go and change the link to Dredd 3D across multiple articles? I informed you at 10:30, you last changed something at 11:49. And you gave 2 hours notice before making all of these changes starting with the article title. No discussion was had, boldness goes only so far but when I've pointed out to you there is a contrary piece of official information and over an hour later you're still making changes, you're kinda abusing bold. Now if it is called Dredd, someone, hopefully you, has to now go correct all of those links. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Dark, sorry I only just saw your edits to this page just now. I wouldn't have continued editing if I had seen it at 10:30. However although the title of the web page you got the picture of the movie poster from says "Dredd," the poster itself says "Dredd 3D" and so does the movie's entry on IMDb, AND the official movie website, [1], and also other sources such as the Judge Dredd comics (and you would think their editor would know). So I still maintain that the page move and other edits are correct. But I'm sorry I didn't discuss this with you earlier, but I didn't check back to this page or my watchpage until now. Richard75 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean the title of the page the poster is on, I mean the poster credits at the bottom where it lists producers, writers and stars and after Urban's name, or a few of hte actors names, it says "Dredd" as the film title, and poster credits are factual and how they are submitted to relevant bodies. This poster also just calls it Dredd. When films are in 3D, they will commonly add 3D to the title. That first poster is also recent, from the last week or so. While it is possible the name was changed to Dredd 3D, the sources seem to switch back and forth. And IMDb is not to be used as a reference on this site, its information is completely editable, including the title, by regular users. If you add an IMDb source to a page, it will be reverted, especially on a high profile page because its use for backing up information is not considered acceptable on the site. It is rated R, so surely it has been rated by the MPAA and they should have its proper title. The BBFC will be more relevant however because it is a British film and however it is titled in the UK is how the article should be named. It has not been submitted to the BBFC though yet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Additionally if you search here it comes up as Dredd as well. So the titles seem conflicting and a lot of non-direct sources might be picking up on the title from the posters and then propagating the confusion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
OK I accept what you say about IMDb. And I will accept for the sake of argument that a poster is not necessarily helpful for deciding the issue, even though the second poster you linked to is an old one. But that still leaves the title on the official movie site, and what the Dredd comic editor is calling it, and also the official movie Facebook page is called Dredd 3D: [2]. So I think that the reason there are various sources calling it Dredd is because the title change happened recently, not because it isn't really called Dredd 3D. Richard75 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Alex Garland refers to the film as simply 'Dredd'. Here http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php/topic,36741.0.html he says "They call it 3D because we spent millions of dollars and God knows how much time and effort trying to make a cool 3D movie. But the actual title of the film is not Dredd 3D. It's Dredd." White43 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dredd is the title of his script. The title of the movie will be whichever title comes up on the screen when the BBFC certificate appears. In the meantime the indications are that the studio is going with Dredd 3D. Richard75 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not really Richard, I posted evidence to the contrary, you just didn't want to accept it and I couldn't be bothered arguing over it. Hopefully the BBFC will get their job done soon. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, whaddya know. it's called Dredd. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/CFF289356/ http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BFF289356/ Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll move it back. But you should try not to take it so personally when people don't agree with you or you'll have a heart attack. Richard75 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It might be worth adding (alternatively known as Dredd 3D to the lede, have to see how it is advertised elsewhere. The primary name should obey the UK name for obvious reasons but if it is also widely known or released as Dredd 3D in a market like america, it might be worth adding for clarity. I don't know if it just being called Dredd would be particularly confusing though, its not like Fast Five and Fast and the Furious 5 which are drastically different titles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's Dredd in America too, according to their own film classifiers, the MPAA. Richard75 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
According to the movie studio (who are the one who determined the name), it is [i]Dredd 3D[/i] and should be moved to that. TJ Spyke 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No it shouldn't. What movie studio? It was submitted to the BBFC as Dredd, the poster credit by the American distributor labels it as Dredd, the film rating board of AMerica that Rich posted above labels it Dredd. Lionsgate flips back and forth but the primary title (and Lionsgate isn't a studio its a distributor) is Dredd. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Raid

Somebody added a paragraph about the film "The Raid" and pointed out that people have been comparing the two films. Darkwarriorbalde took this out on the ground that it is irrelevant, since the Dredd film began production and filming first. That's as may be, but readers won't necessarily know that unless this article tells them. Shouldn't we deal with the point somewhere in this article, if only to rebut it? Richard75 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No. People are making a comparison literally because there is a tower block and stuff happens within that tower block. Every time people get perturbed that a film bears similarities to something they like, it is not an excuse to weigh down an article with pointless discussion about it. This is the line in the source the IP added:

a straightforward storyline that does appear to unfold in a manner akin to this year’s cult-hit Indonesian thriller, The Raid: Redemption (a.k.a. The Raid).

It's speculation by someone who thinks they are special for having seen a foreign language film that based on trailers, two Judges going into a building block to hunt down a drug dealing Kingpin and her futuristic slow motion drug in a comic book futuristic post apocalyptic mega city is akin to a 20 man swat team raiding an apartment block to deal with criminals and internal corruption. Beyond the premise of dealing with crime, shared with any crime film ever, the only relative thing they share is a vertical setting which are drastically different from each other. This is not cause for space to be dedicated to such speculative discussion. This isn't Armageddon and Deep Impact, they're not in direct competition and apart from a handful of randoms declaring a similarity based on nothing, there is no correlation between the films. So no I do not believe it should be dealt with in the article, even if only to rebut. When the reviews come out I'm sure several of those critics, eager to show their credentials by knowing about a foreign language film called the Raid, will make that comparison and it can be dealt with in the context of that review. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Also such a comparison is not being made on the Raid article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how similar (or dissimilar) they are, there's a strong dialogue on the matter, and I'm not sure it's your decision to censor that fact. It's my feeling that this should be listed under both "The Raid" and "Dredd 3D". To argue in favor of "Dredd 3D" or "The Raid" alone merely shows one's bias. Various articles have mentioned the similarities, the timeframe is key, but I'd rather read the facts and not the opinion of a few fanboys. http://collider.com/dredd-3d-review/194145/Isunktheship (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that the comparison will be mentioned here when a reliable source mentions it. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough fanboy, let's try someone else's opinion.

"The Raid has arrived in the last couple of months and Dredd is suddenly attracting a lot of comparisons to that, even though you were obviously already in production two years ago. Is that a problem for you?

Garland: I guess it’s just unfortunate timing, and we’ll see if it ends up mattering. At least what we’ve done though won’t take away from the incredible achievements of that film. One thing that one can be aware of, having worked on a film with a very similar narrative, is that they’ve done something pretty extraordinary considering their resources. They’ve done something pretty extraordinary anyway! So all power to them."- Alex Garland
So check that 'tude at the door. One didn't copy off the other and the only meaningful connection would be if they cannibalized each other's box office hwich is impossible since they aren't in direct competition. So what would the commentary be? Two films set in tower blocks were released in teh same year. Panic ensued? There were 3 super hero films too. There's no meaningful commentary to make beyond someone liking one more than the other and the only reason it is an issue is because people saw one before the other despite the fact that (and I'm aware that this is just a fanboy opinion), one existed before the other. Like literally finished filming 2 months before the Raid started. Which again boils down to which tower-set but otherwise unrelated film do you prefer? At which point we should probably drag Die Hard into the mix as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Filming/TV

I thought this was interesting and worth a mention : http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-editors/judge-dredd-film-more-honest-stallone-version-101504372.html Urban admits that he turned to Alex Garland for direction, rather than Pete Travis.

Garland also indicated that he'd like to see a TV series going forward : http://www.scifinow.co.uk/news/judge-dredd-tv-series-alex-garland-hopes-so/ White43 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot

There seems to be some dispute over the location of Mega City one? Noone is leaving edit summaries for it so I do not know if it is a jingoistic edit or its incorrect. I'm fairly sure the film says the city spans from like Boston into Canada. Is that not correct? Is there another reason for it being changed to "an eastern coast"? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit. I think the film said from Wadhington to Boston, which is a lot smaller than in the comic, but still. America only has one eastern coast, and also the same edit made it appear that the Cursed Earth is the whole world and not just North America. Richard75 (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Note from this a.m.'s press screening

Deep in the end-credits, a line says flatly that the film is "A South Africa / United Kingdom co-production," just FYI.

Also to confirm: The onscreen title is indeed simply Dredd and not "Dredd 3D". --Tenebrae (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In a case like this, could we just replace "British" in the opening sentence with "English-language" and mention the co-production bit a little later in the lead section? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well that doesn't seem particularly right, it's a british studio producing a film based on a british comic by a british writer, with british producers, a british writer, and a british director and lots of british cast. The only available information says it was filmed in South Africa. If it is a co-production in the credits that might apply it for inclusion in the infobox but in the lede, it is clearly a British film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it not possible to defer mention of "British/South African" until later in the lead section? I think the co-production indicates an ambiguous nationality, and per MOS:FILM#Lead section, we can defer mention to use proper context. Otherwise, we tend to mention the nationality if it is straightforward (less the case nowadays than in the past, obviously). Deferring may also help reduce possible edit warring to keep it simple in that opening sentence -- either using "English-language" or not mentioning anything besides year/genre at that point. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It certainly seems like a British film to me, personally, but maybe a big chunk of the budget came from producers or a film fund of South Africa, where it was filmed. I just don't know. I'm only going by what the credits state. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The funds came from an Indian company through an American subsidiary, so I can only imagine they're getting South African from using South African labour? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Errors in the Design section

There are several errors in the Design section. Does anyone object if we change/remove these?

"His Judge uniform was altered from the comic version, including the removal of an eagle from his shoulder pad to emphasise the outfit's functionality and grant it a sense of realism."" Not true. There is an eagle design on the right shoulder pad, clearly visible all the way through the film. I'd recommend we'd delete the part in bold.

"Remaining faithful to the comic, Judge Dredd keeps his helmet on throughout the film, obscuring all but his mouth and chin." Again, not true. (One reason I'm glad the movie is finally out is so we don't have to hear ill-read fans saying Dredd never removes his helmet or we never see his face. Those myths just annoy me.) Dredd does not keep his helmet on throughout the film. There is a short 'gearing-up' scene at the beginning of the movie during which Dredd does not have his helmet on, including the last two shots of that scene which show first Urban in full view without his helmet, albeit with the upper part of his face in deep shadow, and second Urban from behind putting the helmet on.

This shouldn't be deleted but it should be rewritten heavily. I'd suggest something like:

"For the vast majority of his comic book appearances, Judge Dredd is not seen without his helmet on or with his face obscured in some manner. The film follows this example with only a brief couple of shots of helmetless Urban in the opening scenes, with his face hidden by shadow or the framing of the shot itself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.64.30 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I made some brief changes but I'm not being pedantic and itemising the 5 second moment where he gears up and doesn't have his helmet on. The emphasis in every interview is on him keeping the helmet on, which he does, and that his face is never shown, which it isn't.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy

In the lead paragraph it says that takings are $30m as of 3 October. But in the Box office section it says $23m as of 11 October. That's either a lot of refunds or an error. Richard75 (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A user added a different reference for the box office, which may be correct as BOM hasn't updatedits foreign figure for the film in ages, but its hard to trust it when the added source says the budget was 75 million when every single other source says 45.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The info on Boxoffice.com are always wrong. Don't trust them. They've given the budget of Lincoln as 83 million dollar while it's true budget is bw 50-60 mills. Even Box office mojo does not have correct info but theirs are much more accurate. And please do not undo any edits without talking to others and taking their opinions. BOM figures are much more correct and it has updated it's foreign figures although it is slow in updating the figures of less earning films. This film is a box office bomb anyway. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Right apparently I missed this discussion. I don't know if the BoxOffice.com figures are correct at $36 million, I do know I have had issues with BOM being slow to update, and that The Numbers.com backs up the BoxOffice.com figure. The reason the line about the Box Office Bomb was removed is because it's not really an applicable term as it does not apply purely to any film that fails to make back its budget, bombs (you can read up on them at Box office bomb) are generally films which have large production costs and make a fraction of that total cost by a wide margin, so things like Cutthroat Island or John Carter which lost like $200 million. They'er also films that are poorly critically received as well and an all round failure of a film. Dredd's budget was considered (It is in one of the sources but I can't remember which), good because it was so low so even if it underperformed there wouldn't be significant losses and was very positively received critically, with commentators blaming the lack of proper promotion for its overall success rather than the film and at least as far as I have seen, no one declaring it to have made a significant financial loss; the gap is small enough to be recouped by tv/home media as well which they often take into account. So the term Box Office Bomb is not really applicable to the film, at least not without a notable source, and that would probably go in the box office section rather than the lede. I apologise for being short with you KJ, another user or two had been adding it last night and I get fed up reverting the same edits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Instead of calling it a box office bomb have instead added the line that the film was "unsuccessful at the box office" under the box office section. The film might make the money back through home media as in the case of 'Waterwold" which grossed in actual only 132 million dollar but later earned profits after it was released on DVD. And about The Numbers.com it does back up Boxoffice.com figures but as I've already given the example of you "Lincoln" it mentions it budget to be 83 million US dollars while other sources report it to be between 50 - 65 million dollars. Now that's more than a difference of 30 - 18 million dollars which is huge. It does mean that the budget figures either on Boxoffice.com or rest all of the sites are wrong. Normally the latter case seems highly unlikely which indicates that figures on BoxOffice.com are highy incorrect. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree the budget is wrong on Box Office.com, but so is BOM, numerous sources back up $45 million including:
Additionally, BOM is out of date. I actually added up all the figures at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=dredd.htm, the top figure says the total is 17 million, but after adding them up I get 23,056,059. Add that to the US figure and you get $36,470,773, which is actually higher than BoxOffice.com's figure by 400,000. So BOM has the correct figures but hasn't updated it's total, so the gross is officially at least 36 million, I can't see that being argued against now. If you want to check for yourself, just go to that foreign link above and count them up with a calculator.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh sorry man. There's no way I could have known that. You were in fact right. I'm extremely sorry for any trouble caused. If i would have known about this in the first place I would never have edited the box office figures in the first place. But that still does not change the fact that it was a box office failure. Also Box office mojo mentions int's budget to be 50 mills so there was no reason to change the budget figures. Lastly apologies again I didn't think they would have given so much wrong figures. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't earlier notice what you said about the budget and changed it. I'm sorry it was a rash decision. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dredd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs) 15:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    • The production notes reference in Urban's cast section is interrupted by another bit of information with another reference, in such cases another citation is required before the interrupting information as not to mislead readers, which citation cites which bit of information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    (c) it contains no original research:
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
    7. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Pass/Fail:

  • Overall a very well written, interesting article. Good use of sources and paraphrasing their contents. The plot section however could use some work before submitting for a featured article nomination, although I know it is difficult considering the film. Congratulations to everyone who contributed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for passing it, but what is wrong with the plot? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It just doesn't flow that well, particularly the last paragraph. It's reads like a list or timeline of events but it's not horrible, it's good enough for GA but could use some touch up for FA. Also a couple of the sources could be upgrading before FA as well (/Film, comingsoon.net, e.g.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I just made some modifications to that last paragraph, trying it to read more like prose and less like sports commentary. See what you think of that. --uKER (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Much better.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • K, I think I've done what you're listing here. Just to double check: 1) looked up and added reference to cast section for Urban; 2) Moved Marketing section; 3) Removed mention of photos and accompanying unused ref; 4) MOved filming after design. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm still going through the article, so keep checking back for additional comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Anderson [accepts/assumes] she failed

I changed it to read "assumes" but it got reverted. My rationale is that in the end she does not fail the evaluation, so I don't see what's wrong with saying she "assumed" to have failed it. It's not like Dredd changed his mind the very moment after she walked away. --uKER (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It changes the meaning to say she had passed and just assumed she failed. She had failed, Dredd didn't call her back and tell her otherwise but when pressed on it he passes her in spite of his very rigid code and the rules he set out for her at the start because he thinks she is worthy to be a Judge. The writer specifically states taht Dredd does not change almost at all in teh film to stay true to the character, but that he lays out a specific statement at teh start of the film and then contradicts it at the end; that is his growth as a character. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Saying that it should be "accepts" and not "assumes" is based on you assuming, based on -your- interpretation of something the director said, that Dredd intended to make her fail when she left, and changed his mind immediately afterward. "assumes", on the other hand, doesn't imply she was either right or wrong to think that. Saying she "assumed" something doesn't necessarily imply that she was wrong to think that. It could be either way, and I'd say unless we have concrete proof either way, ambiguous is the way we should keep it. --uKER (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
He gives her the rules and says she fails if she breaks any one of them including being disarmed and not following orders, she gets disarmed, she says at the end that it doesn't matter she pardoned the technician because she failed by being disarmed, in the end she leaves because she failed, Dredd says she passed anyway. It cannot be made any clearer. Saying she 'assumes' she fails is synthesis because it implies something about Dredd that is not established at any point in or out of universe; that he was gonna just pass her anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Contrarily, in saying he was ready to make her fail you're making an assumption that is never made clear, despite your arguments. The word "assume" has an ambiguity that you're missing if you use "accepted". --uKER (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no ambiguity. I've just stated why above, he says how she fails, she says she knows she has failed, the film ensd and she goes away because she has failed, the Chief Judge asks, Dredd takes a moment then says she passed and you have the writer saying that he makes a clear indication at the start and contradicts it at the end as his form of character growth. One is backed up by multiple statements and events in the film, "assumes" is not, it is not ambiguous it implies that Dredd was going to pass her before the Chief Judge asked and he had to make the decision.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You're presenting as fact that the exact moment she walked away, Dredd's intention was to make her fail, and he only changed his mind seconds later. That's not fact, but your interpretation. Period. "assumes", on the other hand, does NOT imply that she was wrong. The phrase "incorrectly assume" existing is proof of this. --uKER (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat a 5th time all the things in the film that establish exactly how she fails, how it is acknowledged she fails and how Dredd is not a wishy washy person who just passes people. She failed by all qualifiers laid out in the film and acknowledges it. That she is passed in the end doesn't change the fact that she failed, accepted she failed, and walked away. You're wrong, the film in and out of universe is against you. No one else has had a problem with it so I suggest you come up with some evidence why its wrong instead of just saying it is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I fully embraced it and I think that’s one of the great strengths about it. Dredd is seemingly unchanged. He is seemingly like just a tower of strength and everybody else is bending and buckling and changing and oscillating where Dredd is a constant. To me that’s a huge attraction and a huge plus, but an actual fact if you really study the film there is an arc for Dredd. There is a change. Dredd does something at the end of this film that he never would have done before meeting Anderson and that’s really the beginning of the cracks and the questioning I think for him. I don’t want to get too much into spoilers…

By Urban.

"I didn’t think Dredd could have a great epiphany, but there is definitely a change in him over the course of the movie. He makes a very clear statement at the beginning of the film which he then contradicts at the end. That’s about as far as the shift goes."

By Garland. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to know what interpretation is, right? It doesn't matter how sure you think you are of it. You're just trying to force feed us your interpretation of that babble. Unless you present us with factual proof that Dredd's mind was set on failing her at that exact moment, we are not to assert such thing. For all we know, he may have decided to pass her 15 seconds before she left and decided to let her have the surprise later, and you cannot disprove it. --uKER (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to know what reading is. It doesn't matter if his mind was on flowers and puppies at the moment in time, its made clear IN the film she fails if she does something, she does it IN the film, she acknowledges it IN the film, she states she failed IN the film and she leaves at the end because she failed IN the film. He does not pass her until after all of this has happened so he can have decided to pass her at the start and it wouldn't change what actually happens in the film, WITHOUT the out of universe information to back it up. Unless you want to explain what both the star and writer were referring to with those statements. Again, those are back up, the film itself acts independently as evidence. Your evidence so far is "because". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, for all we know, he may have decided to pass her 15 seconds before she left, and decided to let her have the surprise later. None of the stuff you quoted disproves that. And there's no evidence for me to present, since all I'm saying, precisely, is that there's no evidence either way, and we're better off leaving it ambiguous. --uKER (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. I've provided evidence to counter your argument and you've been unwilling to accept it and turned this into a discussion about 10 times longer than it needed to be. What is shown in the film and out backs up what is there, everything that needs to be is stated in the film by the characters required to say it. It's stated how she fails, what happens if she fails, its stated that she accepts she fails. At no point in the film is anything ambiguous presented about these facts. Your argument is "I think otherwise, I have no evidence to say why, I can't say why the evidence you're presenting is incorrect, so let's do what I want because it's better". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm only commenting here because I was asked to. Anyway I thought it was pretty obvious that she failed and her failure was acknowledged by both Dredd and Anderson at the time but Dredd later passes her anyway breaking protocol. This also seems to be supported by the filmmakers in third-party sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I still don't think it's undeniable that his change of mind happened AFTER she leaves, even considering the interviews (which I certanly knew before they were presented here) but if I'm the minority, I guess I'll have to live with it. --uKER (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing point from plot

Perhaps it would be nice to incorporate Dredd testing Anderson's ability to execute a convict, and her later realization that she had just executed the husband of the woman that helped them. --uKER (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

To emphasise that would give that scene importance, which would be original research. Citing a reliable source would bypass all that. DonQuixote (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Developing

At the moment I think the article could use three things in a move towards FA: a single image to illustrate the futuristic city/tower blocks and explain the design team efforts in spacing the tower blocks further apart as design went on to show off the larger world; a short clip of the Slo-mo effect to demonstrate what the text cannot (but I can't do this until the DVD comes out); and a short segment of music to illustrate Leonard-Morgan's extreme slow down music + reviews if possible. For the city I have found the following concept art which may be appropriate: Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone has any input they want to give, otherwise I'll ask the artist of the second one if he is ok with its fair use and go with that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I Have identified the following 4 scenes from the film that could be used to demonstrate the Slo-Mo effect as described in the design section. Ideally the one chosen should demonstrate the contrast between the normal world and the colour and light enhanced slo-mo effect and possibly a violent shot per the line in the design section about attemping to make the violence beautiful. I am not sure what the policy is regarding violent material on wikipedia though. I omitted the conclusion, even though I think the head crush/fall is probably the best example of hte effect and is also described in the design section. Per WP:SPOILER we could include it so it is an option. The final clip won't be as long as these as I'll edit it down to the main part so don't worry about length:
Let me know what you think. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Kurzon's discussion because ...

...they can't do it themselves. I have spent my time integrating what positive changes you have made with the better version of the plot. Your massive sweeping changes to the plot are not improvements and you are currently edit warring over it now, changing something, rechanging it, changing it again claiming it is an improvement and it isn't; that's why what worked stayed and what didn't went. But you continue to reinsert your changes in the same or modified form. Discuss. Do not readd it again until you have. I've got better things to do at the moment so quick things:

  • no biometric failsafe is ever mentioned in the plot so you can't simply introduce biometric failsafe going off.
The weapon has a DNA scanner. We see this in the opening scene.Kurzon (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic, it is in the film. Now, is it at all mentioned or introduced in the plot before it is referenced? Is it easier to say a failsafe explodes because it doesn't recognise the wielder or easier to both introduce teh gun failsafe and then reference it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a close-up of the DNA scanner in the opening sequence where Dredd suits up, and then again when Kay tries to fire Anderson's weapon.Kurzon (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Ma-Ma is thrown to her death, that suffices.
Was she thrown outside or down the atrium?Kurzon (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
She's thrown from the building, the specifics are not important, the atrium is not introduced in the plot either, it asks knowledge of the building's infrastructure that is not available to the casual reader, and specifying whether it was the top floor or the 50th floor makes no difference; that she is drugged and thrown to her death is the important plot point.
The atrium is the column of space that runs down the center of the building. It's an important detail both visually and thematically. The block is its own self-contained world, and is literally sealed off from the city when Ma-Ma is killed. Mega-City 1 is just background, virtually the whole movie is about the block. I know this is hard to convey in a text summary, but "atrium" is just one word.Kurzon (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "Wonders why", along with the previous "shoots her up" and "Dredd figures" are terrible writing.
I concede this point, that was terrible. I would have rewritten it myself given the chance.Kurzon (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You had the chance, there wasn't a time trial, you chose to keep restoring it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Dredd beats him, doesn't torture, and the whole thing reads better without the changes.
Beating is a type of torture, but I can roll with this.Kurzon (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • She employs the Judges, it doesn't matter if they arrive or were already there, they are there now.
OK.Kurzon (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Who cares if he stalls Lex "for long enough", he stalls, she kills him.
OK, though I wondered if Dredd actually knew Anderson was coming.Kurzon (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
From what I remember he stalls Lex for like 10 seconds, she was probably already behind Lex
  • chan attacks Dredd, don't need to reiterate suspicion and cover blown.
That wasn't my writingKurzon (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Then you are restoring content you don't want Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • the repeated change to the minigun scene which reads terribly in the 3-4 forms you've replaced it with.
Point of view, I guess.Kurzon (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't slept in 36 hours and I am way too tired for lengthy discussion. I took the time to carefully retain the improvements you made and removed the bad, then I asked that it be discussed instead of just restoring the content. The ignoring of this effort leaves me perturbed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Have a rest then, you're overreacting. I understand this feeling (I've been there), so maybe we can resume this discussion later. You've made some valid points, so I'm willing to continue discussing this when you're feeling better.Kurzon (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If you'd both like to take a breather and let an unaffiliated third party come in with a fresh eye, I'd be glad to help. Can't do it know; might be a few hours or tonight. I'm assuming there's no rush? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a another editor besides Kurzon and Darkwarriorblake has made some good edits. There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of difference -- seems just a matter of detail and occasional overdetail. I'll give a polish, most to do some basic copy editing like changing passive voice to active and trimming unnecessary "that"s and such. (Gotta love your Strunk & White!) Maybe it'll help. Here goes nothin'. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
That was me. Glad to see you appreciate my edits. I have been participating in the editing of the plot since the GA assessment results came out. I made these edits trying to provide a third option, and I tried to refrain doing them in one single edit, in order to provide a rationale for each one of them in the summary. I just saw one of them reverted with no reason given, and although I know it's not the best thing to do, I reverted it back, expecting at least that a reason is provided for how the proposed text is better than the current one. Well, hope we can reach a stable version of the plot sometime soon. See you all around. --uKER (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I was not being irrational, I was being pissed that I had to keep doing it. The first point in that list that I, on this talk page, have to repeat for a third time, is that the gun is in the FILM and the explanation for what it does is in the FILM. It's biometric failsafe is not explained in the PLOT HERE, it is just randomly referenced, hence why (paraphrased) "explosive failsafe when it doesn't recognise its wielder" WAS there; it explains exactly what is happening and why. People who don't know what a biometric failsafe is do not understand. People who do know what one is still won't know why it triggers. Alongside other edits you've again reinserted without any kind of reasonable discussion. Dredd beats Kay because Ma-Ma destroys an entire floor and kills its residents, not because he suspects that she is desperate to keep Kay quiet. And Ma-Ma does what she does to kill the Judges, not Kay, the Judges HAVE to die. He already knows she is desperate to keep Kay quiet; she's locked them all inside a tower and sent everyone to kill them. We don't need to state that the minigun bullets miss the Judges. Unless we say they hit the Judges, they did not hit the judges. "slaughter their way through dozens of armed thugs" over the sentence you replaced removes both the reality (that it is residents and not just random Bond goons) and the Judges current purpose, to find refuge for the moment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Who are you replying to? --uKER (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kurzon, unless you called me irrational too and who are you to call me irrationawhargbasdasdad. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see where Kurzon called you irrational either, so I like turtles. --uKER (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Well looking at it he said I was overreacting. So I guess I was being irrational, but I wasn't overreacting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kurzon there is an open discussion. If you think I don't notice you just putting back all your edits one at a time instead of all at once after the edits myself, UKER and now Tenebrae have made, you are mistaken.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Curses, I am discovered! There is no escaping your eagle eye.Kurzon (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sentence clarification

I wrote "Lex moves in to kill Dredd, but the latter stalls him." I was reverted saying '"the latter stalls him"' is awkward, and "him" could have meant either Lex or Dredd'. Just for the record, the sentence's subject is Lex; therefore, any further mention of "him" in the sentence refers to Lex. Furthermore, "the latter" is clearly Dredd, so I don't anyone could think "him" is Dredd too. I'd say the sentence is worse as it is now with that reiteration of both names but oh well... --uKER (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sequels

The article says that if the film had made $50 million then they would make sequels, but it made $36 million. So the rest of that section is nothing but speculation (before the film was released) about what might have happened if things had turned out better. While it was reasonable to add it at the time, it now seems like something that no longer belongs in an encyclopedia. I propose removing it, but will wait and see if anyone wants to try and justify its retention. Richard75 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It speaks to future planning not speculation and unless the world ends then sequels can be made. Why give so much credence to one mans idea of what money it needs to make and not the same to the same mans idea of where the films would or could have gone. The information is still relevant and I think you'll find that to be true across many articles where writers talk about what they would have done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Same thing. The sequel[s] being considered viable or not does not affect this information's relevance. --uKER (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Budget

There is a link that is commented out that gives Box Office information but it claims the total budget for the film was $75 million. Does this mean that there was a production budget of $45 million and another $30 million spent on marketing? (Also why are there unused references commented out in the wiki source? Why would an editor do that?)

I notice that the Variety article used at the source of budget is from 2010 at the time Olivia Thrilby was cast, so the production budget may have changed after that date.

Box Office Mojo claim the budget is $50 million but they have a habit of rounding figures and experience has shown they are only vaguely reliable.

The Los Angeles Times is usually a good source for budget information (so too is Variety admittedly) and they put the production budget at about $40 million but they also mention an additional $25 million was spent on advertising and prints. (So I guess I've answered my own question mostly.) The article should probably be improved and specify "production budget" to be unambiguous. The extra cost of prints and advertising might be added to the Box Office section. -- 109.77.182.148 (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The below sources all back up the Variety article and those involved with the film have said it was 45 as well. The commented out sources were done by someone because the sources weren't used anymore and it was creating a page error. The particular source said $75 million or $70 million which was completely out of whack with any other source, but the 45 has been pretty strongly consistent and the LA times article says "around $40 million", so I think the 45 is fairly strong position to take. As for marketing costs, we don't roll them into the budget unless its the given budget figure, if its reliable its something that could be mentioned in... Marketing I guess? Maybe release.
Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Still seems weird to leave an orphan source commented out, instead of just deleting it or moving it the Talk page or something. If it going to remain in the wiki source it should have a comment explaining why it has not been deleted or how it might be reincluded in the article.
I've specified "production budget" in a few places. I think it is most important to do this in the Box Office section in particular, so that readers get the implications that there are other costs such as marketing that aren't explicitly mentioned.
I think with this discussion here too it should be clearer to anyone else who is in any doubt about the specifics. Thanks for your comments. -- 109.77.82.222 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
We are only ever talking about production budget, there is no need to type out "production budget", if you're talking about marketing you call that marketing budget because that would be a unique scenario. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Home media

The article says that the DVD and Blu-ray have 7 features but then lists six. Can someone who owns one please add the 7th? Richard75 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --uKER (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD for Darkwarriorblake

Responding to your edit summary, which I quote: "I'm not going over WP:BRD again, it passed GA with them, there is not a space limitation on two cast members and you don't even know who they are in the film, you thought they were the opening criminals. So knock it off.)" First of all, I'm not knocking it off because you say so. Rules are to be followed, Mr., so here's your BRD. Now, I don't see the point in listing random minor characters that go unnamed in the film, probably have no spoken lines, and do nothing for the plot. You flaunt your argument that I don't know who those randoms are, but do YOU? From WP:MOSFILM: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." --uKER (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Big Joe is the guy who takes over the Paramedic station, he has lines, Japhet is Anderson's first execution, he has lines. Their presence and lines are comparable to Judge Guthrie, so do we exclude him? Volt and Guthrie aren't named in the film, one name we know because the actor says that is who he is playing, the other because you can read his badge. The technician has no name. No, it's two names you had no idea who they even were and should've dropped it after the first restore when it was clear that was the case. Everyone listed in the cast section speaks in the film, it passed GA with them present, it's had numerous edits since they were first added that has retained them. So there is no strong argument for their removal. Not even a weak argument. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Having seen the film five or six times, I don't recall anyone taking over the Paramedic station, or Anderson's first execution having any actual lines. That said, I find it completely meaningless and devoid of any value to come here and read that a random someone plays "Zwirner", "Big Joe" or "Japhet", names that are never seen or mentioned in the film. Japhet could qualify, being Jason Cope a blue link, and even then I would detail better which character Japhet is supposed to be. I quote again, from WP:MOSFILM: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." --uKER (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
For god's sake, are you really going to draw this out into another long discussion because you aren't getting your way? Don't we have better things to do? I don't care how many times you've seen the film or about your ignorance thereof. That you don't recall, after seeing Dredd five times (and I'm starting to think you watched the Stallone version not this one) that a gang takes over the Paramedic station, led by BIG MOTHER FUCKIN' JOE is irrelevant. There are characters who aren't named in the film but they are named in the credits, the clan technician doesn't have a name, the two judges at the door aren't named in the film, there are characters that have little dialog, they're still in the film, they're still named, they're still a part of the film in ways apparently more significant to some than others, it passed GA with them in the article, it has survived numerous edits with them in the article, it can and will pass FA with them in the article. They are not indiscriminate names, indiscriminate would be "Diner number 1", "Patron number 2". Just drop it and stop wasting both our time over two names. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I say you tone yourself down on the F bombs, Mr. And, no, I don't agree with you and will seek a third opinion before leaving things to your mercy just because you like to curse. --uKER (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Fine, waste some other poor souls time over two names because you personally don't remember their parts in the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I do know their parts in the film. It's you who doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. Big Joe never takes over the Paramedic station. He just gets killed outside of it, and he goes completely unnamed in the film. Anderson's kill only gets to mutter "please" before dying, which I wouldn't consider "having lines". It's sad that you try to discredit me with this nonsense to divert the argument from the real point, which is that I'm saying there's no value in saying "Actor X plays character Y", with no further reference, if you watch the film and there's no "character Y" anywhere to be seen. --uKER (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Uh huh, now that I've explained to you who they are you know who they are. Before that you thought t hey were the guys from the film's opening so you discredited yourself for me, saving me the trouble. He's in the Paramedic room, he's taken control of it, he isn't behind the door the the Paramedic, and now you've rewatched the film so you know he says "please", you're changing your tune from "probably didn't have any lines". You could at least thank me for educating you on the film you've seen 5 times since you didn't know what you were talking about. There are always cast that don't necessarily appear in the plot, I'm sorry that I don't care about your personal evaluation of who is important when you don't know to whom it is you are referring half the time. Stop being a big baby and drop it, and you are being a baby because no reasonable person would continue to drag this out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Man, do yourself a favor and seek help. I never said I didn't know who Big Joe was. I just said his name was meaningless to anyone watching the film, and that nobody took over the med station, which he doesn't despite what your delusion makes you think. The black guy locked himself in it, and even Dredd couldn't get in. Also, I said Anderson's kill doesn't have any lines, and I still say he doesn't. Grow up, Mr. I set the start for a discussion and you're countering like a baby instead of replying to my point, which I'll reiterate for you: without further reference, there is no value in referencing characters by their name in the Cast section if they're unnamed in the film. Let me know if you still don't get it and I'll write it again so you can keep reading it. --uKER (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The clan technician isn't named either, for the third time, are you ignorant or just illiterate? You keep coming up with different qualifiers based on nothing but your own personal opinion. THey're not named, but some are, ok so they don't speak, but some do, ok but I don't remember that scene. What is it now? "without further reference", I love that, like the burden is on ME, who REFERENCED THEM, and not you, who is making a personal claim that they don't matter. They're not going, they belong where they are and you have wasted a bunch of my time AGAIN with your petty agendas. Reply if you want, you'll be talking into the wind. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Fear not, I don't need your authorization or even participation to alter the article. Somebody else will come and if they don't agree with you, rest assured the article will be changed. --uKER (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Poll: value of crediting unnamed characters

Do you find it useful to have the Cast section saying a certain actor plays "Zwirner", or some other plays "Big Joe" or "Japhet? If not, would you prefer it saying that they play "the clan member that does this in that scene"? Would that be giving them undue weight and prefer them removed altogether? --uKER (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloody hell, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. You two need to take some chill pills. For what my two cents are worth, I fail to see how those those minor characters are worth a mention. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If someone is really that bothered about finding out who got shot outside the medic station or whatever they can check IMDb or any of the other hundreds of websites on the net that lists that sort of information.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Then why do Judge Volt or Guthrie need a mention? Why does Alvarez who says nothing and gets shot? It's a god damn stupid argument from a god dam stupid person, it is not an indiscriminate piece of information [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343727/fullcredits#cast that list would be indiscriminate, "Woman with Child", "Control Operator 1", two named characters who appear in scenes, lead scenes, are involved in one characters progression, and have dialog are not indiscriminate. One of them has credited characters assigned to his damn gang named after him. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't wanna read the plot summary because I haven't seen this yet and plan to; but a great way to solve this would be to limit the "cast" section only to those roles with significant real-world information that can be added, rather than simply listing names and actors. This would cut out the need to worry about minor characters entirely. If they're important enough to warrant mention in the plot summary, then that's the best place to credit their portraying actor, leaving a cast section just for major roles (example here). GRAPPLE X 22:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article passed GA as it is and is in line with other GAs I have done, there are several characters that could be omitted from the plot without it losing coherence but I wouldn't remove them from the cast section either including uKer's mythical "named in the film" characters. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Will you continue to jump onto every person that comes here just because you don't agree with them? We're trying to get outside opinions. Stop disrupting the poll, please. Also, you may want to read the section called "there is no such thing as a consensus version" here. --uKER (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
People who can count the number of articles they've raised to a quality standard on no fingers raise your hand. I'm waiting uKer. Saying it passed GA isn't about consensus, it's saying that there were NO problems with the version as it was until you, who can't remember anything about the film, decided that from your personal stance they were not important characters. You decided this without any idea of who the characters even were because you're completely uninformed. When confronted with your inadequacies and corrected you just transferred the argument over to characters who you STILL WEREN'T CLEAR ABOUT because hten you had to ask if they had any dialog. THEN you had to go rewatch the scene just to stay in the discussion. You then trotted out excuse after excuse when the previous one fell through and kept reiterating WP:INDISCRIMINATE which says nothing in support of you wasting my time on multiple occasions over ever minor thing, nor does it support you removing those characters because you have no evidence they are indiscriminate or unimportant beyond your own uninformed opinion where you think they're completely different characters. I've given you solid evidence to the contrary and provided examples of ACTUAL indiscriminate information, but you're upset you didn't get your way and have dragged this on far more than it had to be when I gave you an out. And you did the exact same thing with the ending and Anderson. Maybe it's time to accept you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Say what you like. GA doesn't mean the article is perfect. It had already passed GA and I still got commended here for improvements to the plot. And I remind you of WP:NVC, so get off your horse. If consensus is against you, as seems to be the case, the article will be changed. --uKER (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't need reminding you are an idiot, citing NVC? You've been making edits for months, the first time I undo it you pull a little child fit. First, GrappleX offered an alternative, not support for your insanity, second consensus doesn't work that way, if everyone votes to post a picture of a penis in the middle of the article it doesn't override policy, and there is no policy for omitting information because uKer doesn't pay attention when watching a film. They are in the film, they're named characters played by actors (not having an article on Wikipedia doesn't make them unnotable, Langley Kirkwood didn't have one until a few days ago when you made it) who speak and yes they do speak, both of them, Big Joe quite a lot, and Sparrow has more than one line and is featured prominently in the setup to his death and is relevant after and is relevant overall to Anderson's character arc. They have been in the article for FIVE months without incident until you stumbled through completely uninformed, and the first time I undo one of your edits you do ALL OF THIS, just like you did over the Anderson Ending discussion above. Let's be honest, you are not going through all of this because you think they don't need to be there, you're going through it because your edit was undone, you didn't even KNOW WHO THEY WERE WHEN YOU STARTED ALL THIS, THAT'S THE JOKE! You have no policy on your side that supports the removal of those cast members and they will be restored every time you remove them and then I'll elevate it up to ANI if I have to because your ignorance is not policy thank god, nor is your attitude where you pull stuff like this every time you don't get your way. EDIT: And for gods sake stop making edit after edit after edit to your comments as you think up new excuses, causing edit conflicts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, after reading through all this, it really is a non-issue. Honestly, I would have passed the article with or without the information. It can go either way. So how about some compromise for the sake of the stability of the article, which is a GA requirement. Knowing who played Judge Alvarez or Judge Guthrie might be interesting but I don't necessarily need to know who played the two boys who confront Dredd. Also I know it can be tough at times but everyone needs to remember to keep WP:CIVIL, if need be take a step back, breathe and allow cooler heads to prevail. I'm sure this will all seem silly to both of you in a few weeks from now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The following is my judgement (pun intended)… describing smaller roles as done here is ok and providing the names of characters that are unnamed in the film, together with a short description, is ok. I think Big Joe, Japhet, Zwirner, Amos and Freel all play big enough parts to warrant the level of detail they currently have (which isn't that much). I also think Nicole Bailey as Cathy (the owner of the apartment Dredd and Anderson temporarily hide out in) should be added as she has a significant enough part, and Deobia Oparei's bit should be moved up to after Warrick Grier's bit to match the size of his role. - Kollision (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
DWB, I'll start just ignoring you. With the F-bombs and now calling me an idiot and ignorant, you're lucky I'm not the one reporting you to AIV. Kollision: I agree. With Amos and Freel, the info given here suffices to trace the characters' names to who they are on the film. This is not the case however, with Big Joe and Japhet (Zwirner I fixed). I'll add the necessary context info to those to allow the reader to relate the names to the corresponding on-screen characters. --uKER (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There are only two child characters who confront Dredd and it already says that next to their names. And you were already ignoring me because you were ignorant of every explanation I gave you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The film's country

I would maintain that this film is British and British only. It get its funding from an Indian company and was filmed in South Africa but niether of those things mean that it can be attributed to that country. Star Wars was mostly filmed in the UK, yet we don't see it listed as a American/British film. Etc

Still people clearly disagree

It's listed as a South African/United Kingdom co-production in the official production notes (just follow the citation). That's a pretty definitive answer in my books. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe Star Wars was made with an American crew using British studios? Maybe it should be listed as British? The problem is that it is hard finding out that information, Dredd is a multinational production in technical terms since it gets its financing from an Indian company through an American financial company, it has a British background and a South African crew. In terms of actually producing the material, it's the British higher ups and the South African crew that made it, and in hte credits it is listed as British/South African. If you were to demand only one nationality be shown it would be British because its got a British director/writer/producers and at least one British actor/ress in a prominent role. SA belongs at least in the infobox, the lede is more debatable, but it is sourced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dredd/Archive_1&oldid=1136679181"