What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Film/Dredd

 

TuefelHundenIV
topic
03:58:37 PM Jul 31st 2014
Ok first I am not entirely sure this is a proper use of the trope. Anderson maybe a lighter touch compared to Dredd but Dredd is almost at an extreme. Anderson is also a rookie and does not lapse into rage but behaves like she is expected to as a Street Judge whose job is to act as judge, jury, and sometimes even as executioner.

The rest of the trope is written like the editor is taking this kind of personally and out of context. Both Anderson and Dredd show moments of mercy and restraint in the film. Anderson has a key scene where she stands up to Dredd about her call to let Clan Techie go.

Despite seeming brutal every person that Dredd and Anderson shoot in the tower are part of Ma-Ma's gang whose hall mark is solving nearly every issue with violence. Even the one perp Anderson initially hesitates to execute is picking up a gun and trying to it aim at Anderson. Every perp that gets cut down over the course of the movie is in someway trying to actively kill both of them. Ma-Ma and her gang demonstrate a willingness to go to extremes to try and kill the judges.

The only reason Anderson wasn't raped and tortured to death is because Ma-Ma needed things done a specific way to cover up her operations. Kay himself is shown to be a rather nasty person directly involved in the trio of murders that brought them to Peach Trees in the first place.

From locking down the entire tower and threatening everyone in it with the extermination of their families, the use of heavy weaponry killing many bystanders, hiring a team of four corrupt judges to assassinate them, and even rigging the top 50 floors of the building with a large number of explosives wired to a dead man's switch to protect Ma-Ma from paying the price for her crimes. They are dealing a violent and extreme group of criminals that we would more likely associate with a fanatical terrorist cell rather than simple law breakers.

  • Beware the Nice Ones: Anderson is a cute blonde, very sympathetic in nature. It's easy to forget that she has volunteered to become a cold-blooded, merciless killer.

Larkmarn
04:52:23 PM Jul 31st 2014
Yeah... she's still a law enforcement officer, and she happens to be not quite ineffective. It's not like she has a surprising hidden side where she's impressive and dangerous, she just happened to be a decent person and decent at conflict.
TuefelHundenIV
06:39:11 PM Jul 31st 2014
Pretty much the same way I see it. She is just now getting a baptism by fire and getting her combat chops. By the end of the film its like her training has kicked in and she had accepted the facts of life that a lot of the bad guys are pretty bad and likely won't hesitate to kill her given the opportunity.
TuefelHundenIV
topic
07:40:43 PM Jul 30th 2014
The following is a Zero Context Example. It is possible it could be salvaged but specifics are needed.

TuefelHundenIV
topic
06:55:44 PM Feb 4th 2014
Brought in for discussion.

There is a difference between an adult being tested for a position like a judge in Mega City One and a coming of age story which focusses on someone growing up. The film most definitely does not reflect a coming of age story. It is a Dredd film with a few light touches of buddy cop thrown in. The film doesn't even focus on the test itself but does bring it up at a few key points. Instead it rapidly shifts from Andersons test to the over arching conflict with Mama and her gang. While elements of Andersons test are still shown the focus of the movie is aimed at the bigger conflict.

To top it off Anderson has no trouble with combat in general just with her first execution. Her backstory already has her having grown up in a slum block. She is not making the leap from from Child to Adult,she is making the leap from Rookie in Training to a full ledged keeper of law.
TuefelHundenIV
topic
04:34:39 PM Oct 11th 2013
Ok someone spoilered the trope entry which is not how spoilers are used. IF merely listing a trope is a serious spoiler it should not be put on the page.

In my opinion dirty cop with the specifics spoilered is vague enough to be on the page. The entry alone does not detail how the cops are dirty, how many, and what they are doing that makes them dirty. Someone with spoilers enabled would simply know somewhere in the film there is at least one dirty cop of some sort.

  • [[Spoiler:Dirty Cop: Four corrupt Judges are called in by Ma-Ma when Dredd proves too formidable an opponent to take down on her own, pretending to be Dredd's backup.]]

Knight9910
05:18:56 PM Oct 11th 2013
Agreed. It's not so terrible that it needs to be totally spoilered. Some people just really don't understand how spoiler tags are supposed to be used.

As was stated by the mods, if a person has to read the spoiler to find out whether or not they want to read it, then it's not really serving its purpose.
Nohbody
05:14:29 AM Oct 14th 2013
Maybe tweak the end of the original entry a bit, though, to "pretending to be on official business", but otherwise IMO yeah it was fine as-is.
Larkmarn
12:16:14 PM Oct 14th 2013
I don't think it even needs a spoiler at all. The judges were never presented as being legitimate. Their first mention is when Ma-Ma says "we call the police," then it cuts to them. And then they get in the building and relieve the good cops. At no point is their being dirty a secret to the audience.
TuefelHundenIV
08:35:03 PM Oct 14th 2013
Part of the point of spoilers is to keep folks who haven't consumed the media yet from having it spoiled for them not to conceal it from those who have already seen it. The details would indeed spoil that plot point if you haven't seen the movie. While leaving just the entry details spoiled keeps the majority of the entries ambiguity.

The scene where we discover that all four are crooked involves all four talking to mama about money for the deed and their plans to carry it out.

The point where they are riding in and send the other judges away while definetly suspicious doesn't automatically mark all four of them as Dirty Cops. Until we see them meeting with and negotiating with Mama over a price for their services is that made quite plain.

The line about them pretending to be Dredd's backup is accurate though. Unless you were talking about making the entry a bit less spoilerific.

At this point we agree that the entry can be ont he page and have 3 out of 4 for hiding the details behind the tag with maybe a modification. We have one who thinks it doesn't need to be spoiled at all.
TuefelHundenIV
06:26:41 PM Oct 25th 2013
Unless someone objects or presents something different tomorrow I am going to put the entry back with the just body of the example spoilered tomorrow.
Larkmarn
06:33:26 PM Oct 25th 2013
edited by 108.48.88.58
Put it in like this:

Dirty Cop: Four corrupt Judges pretending to be Dredd's backup are called in by Ma-Ma when Dredd proves too formidable an opponent to take down on her own.

Examples when the entire context are spoiled are also frowned upon, and it certainly isn't a spoiler that Dredd is a dangerous opponent. I still don't think a spoiler is strictly necessary, but I'm fine with this.
TuefelHundenIV
05:28:27 AM Oct 26th 2013
They may be frowned upon but they are accepted when it is better to spoil the whole example. But your example covers that well enough.

It works. I will put that one up.
TuefelHundenIV
topic
10:40:22 PM Sep 16th 2013
edited by 208.77.174.14
  • Writers Cannot Do Math: The crime rate Dredd mentions isn't actually that bad when you consider it is in proportion to a population of 800 million. If we equate "serious crimes" as Dredd calls them to what is classified "violent crime" in modern U.S. law, there is less crime per capita in Mega-City One than New York City had in the 1980s by a clear margin.

Someone in the movie thread mentioned this entry seemed a bit odd and also pointed out a cracked article that possibly inspired the statement.

In the film during a lecture to Rookie Anderson at the start of the film. Dredd rattles off statistics about Crime and Law Enforcement in Mega City 1.

" 12 serious crimes reported every minute, 17,000 everyday. We can respond to around 6%"

Earlier Dredd mentions that rookies have 1 in 5 chance of dying on their first day. Those are stats you see more commonly a battlefield not a urban center.

There is no available definition of what constitutes a serious crime in the Dredd film vs the modern U.S. The media franchise the movie comes from has a vastly different set of legal codes and laws to the U.S. Some examples of crimes include ownership of sugar or coffee as illegal. Possessing unlicensed Goldfish or other small pets is illegal. There are a myriad of examples from the various media and include crimes that simply do not exist in the U.S.

Also in the US Serous Crime typically refers to Felonies in general not violent crime alone.

Even if you interpret Serious Crime to mean violent crime Mega city one is still worse off.

386.00 per 100,000 U.S. 2011 Per Capita.

788.4 per 100,000 Mega City 1 Per Capita

To top it off the Judges have a very limited capacity only able to respond to roughly 6% of that crime. U.S. now has much better response and police coverage.

It looks more like Tropers can't do math or draw a clear distinction in a lack of information needed to make a comparison for that entry in the first place.

Knight9910
05:22:41 PM Oct 11th 2013
People need to remember that Cracked is, first and foremost, a humor and entertainment website. As a result they make lots of factual errors and occasionally actually alter or stretch statistics and facts for the sake of humor. Trying to use them as a source for actual facts is an exercise in futility.
TuefelHundenIV
02:53:24 AM Oct 15th 2013
edited by 98.168.240.129
Agreed. It also wouldn't hurt to sit down and do the simple math for entries like this. The math for per capita is actually pretty easy, plus all the info given by Dredd gives you all you need even if you make assumptions that Serious Crime=Violent Crime.
TuefelHundenIV
05:21:28 PM Oct 25th 2013
edited by 208.77.174.14
Because I am expecting the person who put the entry up in the first place and then placed it back without coming here into discussion to show up and deal with it here like they should have.

The highest violent crime rate for the entire US in the 80's topped out at 1,646,040 in 1989. It also only accounted for about 16% of all crime in that time frame. Apply the same math to Mega City one and you get a very very high crime rate.

The worst period for crime in the US is in 90's. The crime rate is higher and comprable to a time when the nation was considered to have a very serious crime issue.

Not only is crime higher but it is proportional to the population of Mega City One. It is further compouned by the extremely close quarters of the living conditions and lack of sufficient Law Enforcement Coverage.

The total yearly number of serious crime in Mega City one is 6,307,200 per year, with far fewer police, a population notably larger, and in a space about 1/5th as large.

The population tripled from the worst point in the 80's and the serious/violent crime alone nearly quadrupled. If by comparison to the worst of the 80s from the US as a whole violent crime is only 16% of the total crime.

You start applying the same numbers to Mega City one with reduced Police Coverage, a totaltarian government, and the judge system with the street judges and Mega City One is in fact very bad off.

No matter how you slice it Mega City One is worse then any modern day city or state by very appreciable degrees.

The trope cannot be reasonably applied in any way shape or form to the movie or any of the other works in the Dredd verse.

At the highest rate of crime for Newyork in the 1980's crime topped out at 203,042 for the entire year that works out to a measely 113.1 per capita in 1989. That by the way is for the entire state not just the city. Megacity Ones Crime total is over 6 million with 788 per capita.

Even at the worst point in US history today of highest per capita Violent Crime for the entire nation. Megacity one still has a higher per capita violent crime alone in a far smaller space with less police and higher population density in built up areas.

Oh and all the information from the US is drawn from official US reporting sources.
timotaka
08:45:59 PM Oct 26th 2013
My apologies for posting the entry up again without thinking to check here. Upon further inspection, the source I was using to calculate the crime rates in 1980s New York had the numbers for the entire state of New York, not just the metropolitan area. I feel that drawing comparisons to the total crime rate in an entire country is misleading, since urban areas tend to have the highest crime rates. As for how much crime goes unreported either in Mega-City One or in the real world is difficult to tell.

However, I do still uphold that comparing the 788,4 per 100 000 to the real world is not bad. I tried looking up what I could consider a reliable official source online, and one which was easily accessible. The NYPD website has statistics going back to 2000 here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/analysis_and_planning/historical_nyc_crime_data.shtml

Under the top link on that page, "Citywide Seven Major Felony Offenses 2000-2012" the first four felonies listed, murder, rape, robbery and assault, are to my knowledge classified as violent crime. Adding those together from 2000 gives the number of 61 227. Now, the page says consistently that this is for New York City, not the entire state for New York. In 2000 the city had very close to exactly eight million residents. So to get crimes per 100 000 people, we can divide the total number by eighty. That gives 765,5 violent crimes per 100 000 people.

The source I used for my original calculations is http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm It states as its sources FBI and Uniform Crime Reports. That page does give the same number for violent crime in 1989 as you do, 203 042. The total population of the state at that time was 17,95 million, so let's divide that number of crimes by 179,5, since 179,5 x 100 000 = 17 950 000. That 1131 violent crimes per 100 000 residents. I think you might have divided the numbers by one digit too many.

Also, I am still curious about what Cracked article relates to this. I tried searching their website with the keywords "Dredd" and "crime", but nothing relevant seemed to pop up.
TuefelHundenIV
11:22:50 AM Oct 27th 2013
edited by 98.168.240.129
I think you may be right on the new york bit dropped it a decimal place probably added in one too many zeros. As for the cracked article if you didn't get that info from it don't worry about it. I would have to unbury the link from somewhere else. Once we are done here I can dig that up for you.

Mega City 1 is effectively an entire country contained to the remains of the Eastern Seaboard and a bit inland. They are autonomous from any other Megacities on the planet. Each Mega City is a different country. They are for all intents and purposes Massive Psuedo-Arcology like structures. For the Dredd verse we would need the stats for the various sectors the city is divided into to do a proper comparison with the state of New York. However we are never given that info. We just have the Entirety of Mega City one. The sectors are then divided into blocks.

Now if you wanted to pick a particularly high crime part of the world to compare to I would suggest South American or Southern Africa regions. I recall some of the countries have some shockingly high crime rates. Look for militarized Police who can only operate at small scale and high density population centers with a lot of slum space.

I know the Formula goes like this. Total Population divided by 100,000. The violent crime rate then divided by result from 100,000

Disaster Center is a good source.

2011

311,587,816 Total Population Total Violent Crime Rate as the US defines Violent Crime 1,206,031.

With the Per Capita Formula for the US.

311,587,816 divided by 1000,000=3115.87

Take total violent crime. 1,206,031 divide that by 3115.87

That gives us 387.06 per capita. The official per capita is 386.9. Statistical formulas like this usually have other small modifiers factored in or take it out more decimal places. But as you can see the results are very close with a difference of .16.

Lets take the highest violent crime rate in the US to date. It peaked in 1992 during the big Crack Epidemic in the US. It peaked then started to fall and has been falling since.

total population 255,082,000 total violent crime 1,932,270

255,082,000/100000=2550.82 1,932,270/2550.82=757.50 Official source 757.5. Right on the money this time.

So the math is good.

Even the worst of the entire country at it's height and Mega City One still has it beat on a Per-capita basis.

If you wanted to compare Newyork and Megacity one in the same light you need to figure out what percentage of the Total population Newyork is of the US total at that time and the same percentage for its share of the total US crime. Apply those percentages to the totals from Mega City One for your comparison then. You have to compare them at comparable levels to get comparable data. I will do the math for this in a second. Might not be the most accurate but its the best we got.

Tell you what. You can find a country that is more comparable we can work out a better wording of the example. There are other factors we can discuss but we can wait on that later.
TuefelHundenIV
11:52:46 AM Oct 27th 2013
edited by 98.168.240.129
Did the Percentage Solution from New York's highest Violent Crime

New York 1990 Pop 17,990,455 Violent Crime 212,458

US 1990 Pop 248,709,873 Violent Crime 1,820,130

Population Percent

New York 17,990,455/ US 248,709,873=.0723x100=7.23%.

Violent Crime Percent

New York 212,485/ US 1820130=.1167x100=11.67%

Mega City One

Total Pop 800,000,000 x .0723=57,840,000

Crime total 6307200 x .1167=736,050.24

Now plug that into Per Capita

57,840,000/100,000=578

736,050.24/578.4= Mega 1,272.56 New York 1,180.9. NY is slightly lower at its most violent with a difference of 91.66.

The downside is like mentioned not the best comparison because we don't have data from Mega City One at the same level as the state.
timotaka
03:15:13 PM Oct 27th 2013
Fair enough. From a quick gander El Salvador and Honduras would be good candidates for an entire crime-ridden real country, but it's hard to come by statistics for those beyond murder online. I'll look around and see what I can find.
TuefelHundenIV
04:28:19 PM Oct 27th 2013
Try UN sources if you can find them.
timotaka
10:49:39 AM Oct 28th 2013
This has been interesting. I found crime statistics worldwide collected here: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html

However, there is a great deal of variance. According to those numbers, for example Honduras and El Salvador have roughly a measly 50 assaults per 100 000 people, while freaking Sweden is almost to 950 as of 2011. Apparently there are other factors at work here such as the legal definitions and what exactly gets reported, both by the people to the police and by the governments to UN. However, trying to come up with something that seems both reliable and comparable in legal definitions, I calculated the rate for violent crime (homicide, assault, rape and robbery) in the entirety of UK, and reached a number of 804 per 100 000 people.
TuefelHundenIV
12:50:04 PM Oct 28th 2013
edited by 98.168.240.129
The UK also defines violent crime differently then the US.

From this Article

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/ From here.

But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, “possession of an article with a blade or point,” and causing “public fear, alarm, or distress.”

timotaka
06:50:23 PM Oct 28th 2013
I'm not surprised. I am having doubts about how useful any of this information might be with different laws in different countries. How about Mexico? The rate for violent crime I got is 849,7. Certainly the country has problems with crime, but overall it's far from being a lawless hellhole.
TuefelHundenIV
07:16:09 PM Oct 28th 2013
edited by 208.77.174.14
Mexico has some serious issues with cartels and government clashes with them. The cartels are running rampant in certain states.

Are they defining the info at least roughly close to the US? If it is close it is useful.

Mega City one isn't quite lawless either just has a rather nasty crime problem.

Politifact did a more accurate comparison using US defintions for England and Wales because apparently other parts of the UK are recorded seperately, they got 775 per capita.

We are getting close to the Mega City total but some hellhole currently in the world has to exist that is reasonably comprable or worse. Sounds like Mexico may be our nation.

I think we have a winner

UN Survey lists

Related info from the above
PragmaticPolymath
topic
09:17:08 AM Jan 21st 2013
Where is there any indication that none of the guns that the gangers in Peach Tree were using armour-piercing ammo? I recently edited Armouris Useless, because it states "Judge armor doesn't actually seem capable of stopping bullets, even from guns that it rightfully should. An MP 5 sub-machine gun goes through the armor like paper, and Anderson (by all appearances) takes a hit from a pistol. The only time an armor-piercing round was needed was to shoot through a wall." It was reverted back to what it stated earlier.

Maybe it's just me, but if I knew that the Judges were packing some pretty serious body armour, I'd be finding ways to obtain armour-piercing ammo. It may not be the same material as what the Judges are using in their Lawgivers for their AP Rs, but hey, it's better then nothing.

Also, unless they're making the body armour worn by Judges out of something incredible, ballistic fiber, especially Kevlar; can be breached at a close range by subguns like the MP 5. If they are using AP Rs, then that definitely reinforces that occurrence.
Knight9910
05:28:47 PM Oct 11th 2013
edited by 24.254.0.40
Speaking about real life body armor, there are plenty of things that can pierce the average kevlar vest. A .45 caliber round can easily pierce it at close range, and there's no reason to believe gang bangers in Mega City 1 wouldn't be packing .45 cal pistols, or even .50's.

From a distance, even the best bulletproof armor isn't going to be perfect. Each hit fractures the plating and creates a weakpoint, which a second hit to the same spot can pierce with ease.

Point is, armor isn't useless, but it's not all-powerful either. That's why SWAT officers carry shields instead of just counting on their armor to save them.
TuefelHundenIV
02:58:49 AM Oct 15th 2013
.45 caliber pistols can be stopped by a variety of armors. In real life there is a whole armor rating system that involves varying levels of protection. There are guys who make body armor who will shoot themselves muzzle touching the armor surface with mangnum handguns to demonstrate the effectiveness of their armor. Even hard inserts have their own sort of rating.

But other points like armor not necessarily having full coverage or same level of coverage is a good point. Early US hard plate armor ie the early variants of Ranger Armor only had the rifle plates on the front. First use was Somalia on the mission depicted in Black Hawk Down. Several of the rangers were injured or killed when they got shot in the back.

Again given the setting there is no telling what the judges body wear is made of or what the armor is made from. Never mind things like coverage, ammo usage of criminals etc.
Larkmarn
05:54:04 AM Oct 15th 2013
edited by 156.33.241.3
If I recall correctly, there's five relevant times a judge gets shot:

Dredd shrugs off a bullet in the opening.

Anderson takes a hit somewhere in the middle. Doesn't seem to affect her that much (this is the one I remember the worst)

Female judge gets mowed down by Anderson.

Dredd gets hit by the armor-piercing round.

Lex gets mowed down by Anderson.

So it seems pretty inconsistent, unless Anderson's gun has armor piercing rounds (which it might, given she took it from Kay, who's high-ranking and at that point it was clear they were going up against judges). In any case, it's not quite Armor Is Useless. I think the current entry for it is very good.
TuefelHundenIV
11:12:42 PM Oct 18th 2013
Sounds more like the Armor is only as good as the plot demands.
iwishihad2000feet
topic
08:15:37 AM Oct 8th 2012
I don't get why some people are criticising Dredd for not trying to shoot the guys manning the 3 Gatling guns aiming at him. The guns were already spinning up. He had time to take down at most a couple of them. Other people could have taken over. And even if he tried to switch to his incendiary round, he'd have no time to aim and fire before getting ripped to shreds. Looks like a case of unrealistic superhero expectations meeting tactical reality.
axordil
topic
01:11:57 PM Sep 24th 2012
Anyone else think the Slo-Mo drug/related effects served mostly to add ten minutes of padding and a chance to show off some decent SFX?
JRPictures
04:33:14 PM Sep 24th 2012
I would disagree with the padding. Most people think Slo-Mo fits within the Dredd universe.

And yeah it gives a chnace to show off some cool SFX.
Nohbody
topic
05:01:16 PM Sep 22nd 2012
edited by Nohbody
Moved Anti-Climax Boss to YMMV.

Also, fixed Example Indentation, and deleted misuse of tropes, in particular:
JRPictures
07:19:55 PM Sep 22nd 2012
Ok then
Knight9910
05:29:41 PM Oct 11th 2013
Good cuts.
back to Film/Dredd

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy