Talk:Dredd

DNA films

I'm pretty sure DNA films is not owned by Danny Boyle regardless of what other websites might say. DNA had nothing to do with 127 Hours or Slumdog and Boyle said that this version of Dredd probably wouldn't be any good as well.

Superhero Film Categories?

Sorry if this has been asked before, but should this article feature superhero film categories? Such as Category:Superhero films and Category:2012 films?The Editor 155 (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I meant should it include categories such as 'Superhero Films' and '2012 Supehero Film' or are they no relevant?

No. Richard75 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Country of Origin

The BFI inlcudes America, The UK, SA, and India, http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/50c30d84a9272. This is a source we normally use, is there a reason to not include these other countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:188D:3BAC:3110:826B (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, using only the production documents might be considered only using primary sources, which is a bit of a no-no eh? 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:188D:3BAC:3110:826B (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Those other countries are there purely because some of the people who provided funding are from there. They weren't involved in the production which involved filming and crewing in South Africa and the UK and based on a UK IP. So when the film credits say a United Kingdom/South African production, I find that fully sufficient and there's evidence to back that involvement up throughout the article. The involved companies are listed under production company which includes those companies from India and the USA, but the film is neither American nor Indian, and if it were those companies would have taken issue with the film claiming itself as a UK/SA production. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason that they are considered producers is irrelevant; the fact is - those countries are considered producers. Also, the citation you listed never explicitly states that NO OTHER countries are involved in production, so it does not count as evidence to preclude other citations with more information (as per Wikipedia rules on NOR "Sources must support the material clearly and directly" - but they do not support what you are suggesting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:DE5:C000:2C03:E18A:3AF7:9584 (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The film itself and the production states who is involved. The infobox template says "country(s) of production", it was not made in the USA, nor was it made in India, it wasn't made by a majority American or Indian cast or crew, that's why the BFI lists it as UK. You can add any arbitrary country based on the nationality of people who put money in, but these are the core two and are physically listed in the credits which films seldom do. If you don't like it, take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and get them to side on the issue one way or another, but until then, stop re-adding it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are violating the NOR rules. Stating that it was a South-African/UK production is not the same as stating that those were the ONLY countries involved (which it does not explicitly state). And as someone mentioned earlier, you are also ignoring the rule that secondary/tertiary sources are preferred over primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:DE5:C000:2C03:E18A:3AF7:9584 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Those WERE the only countries involved, that's why they're the only ones listed as a United Kingdom/South African co-production. Nowhere in that does it stated a United States or Indian proudction, it's literally just where some money came from. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Because the next step if you want to keep edit warring about it and since you love guidelines is doing this: "Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

According to IMDb, the countries of origin are listed as: USA, UK, South Africa, and India. I am inclined to go with that.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

But the infoxbox guideline states "According to the European Lumiere project, the value of this parameter is seldom found in the primary source (the film) and often involves original research:". The countries of production are found IN the film in this case, anything else is people making judgements based on sources of money not countries actually involved in the production. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Sources are generally inconsistent about countries and will often apply their own criteria. This is the case for most films and our MOS was specifically designed for the typical scenario. However, some films are produced under international production treaties and this seems to be the case for Dredd. The production notes specifically state "A South African/United Kingdom Co-production." The nationality of the film is precisely defined by the credits in this case so there is no need to look beyond that IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• I've seen film credits explicitly state stuff like this before, and it seems legit to me if we go with what they say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

India?

An IP keeps adding India into the infobox. They may have a case for this, but rather than simply adding it against consensus and using edit summaries - can they put their argument here instead? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP says we haven't refuted his links, yet the links present source both the film and the studios production document and both call it a South African/UK production. It was neither made in India/America or by Indians/Americans, putting money in the pot doesn't make it a film of that nationality. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 06:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The film should be classified as an Indian co-production only if Reliance Entertainment actually contributed to the production and received credit. Does this solve anything? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex Garland as Director

Should there be a note in the Director section how Alex Garland directed? Or should it just say Pete Travis. He is officially the director. And you could argue one actor's word can be subjective.

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/dredd-was-actually-directed-by-alex-garland-says-karl-urban/ https://www.indiewire.com/2018/03/karl-urban-dredd-alex-garland-directed-pete-travis-1201937017/ https://collider.com/alex-garland-directed-dredd-says-karl-urban/ --2A00:EE2:907:FF00:E090:C736:ADB1:8247 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing. Surprised nobody else responded.Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna try right now, with hidden note leading to this talk section. Iamnoahflores (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't respond because this hashed out a dozen times in the edit history, but Travis is the credited director and Urban's comments don't change that or warrant a note. It is also discussed in the article.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)