Dredd (Post-release)

The movie made less than half of what the Stallone version did on it's opening weekend, $6.3 million. I don't think it was an advertising issue, this is just not a great time to be releasing movies. Weekend takes plummet after August (Labor Day is usually the lowest-grossing weekend of the year).
 
Fantastic movie with original Robocop style violence. :love

It was much better than I originally expected & well worth my $10.
 
Dredds box office stateside has been a huge disappointment and its difficult to understand why?

IMO, this is one of the reasons

Is it that nobody really remembers Dredd now, except us aging fanboys?

I think that when Stallone as Judge Dredd came out in 1995, he was at one of the peaks of his career. Almost anything with Stallone in it was 'must see', particularly since his last 3 movies Demolition Man, The Specialist and Cliffhanger were a 'return' from his 'comedy' stints like Oscar & Stop or My Mum Will Shoot.

It was Stallone that promoted Judge Dredd on the international scene like never before.

That was almost 20 years ago (gotta stop realising these things as I feel like like an old fart now :lol - but its true :( )

There is no need to outline why Dredd has never lost his appeal here on the board.

However, Prop & Movie Forum members are not what make or break a movie $$$ at the box office.

Take the above into consideration, and I think the reason why the current movie is not doing too well is that Dredd's persona itself lacked promotion.

Big time.

A basic release with little fanfare just didn't cut it with the public it seems.

Say perhaps if they had (as a silly example) shown a trailer with something like 'He's back !' sort of thing, with a very brief visual reference to Stallone and the comics, from a much earlier stage before the release, it would have done much better now.

I am presuming that lack of funds prevented a bigger marketing campaign to 'educate' the new generation.

If say, 'Ghost Rider' was remade in 20 years time using an unknown actor and with little promotion / awareness of character, it too would surely not do well.

Or would Ghost Rider have done so well at all a few years back without Cage ?
 
I havent had the time to see it, but Im glad the film seems to be so good, and therefore sad it doesnt get the success it deserves.

One thing, the trailer Ive seen doesnt make the film look very good at all. Weird pop song and it doesnt feel like they are selling the cool Dredd we know. The trailer makes it feel without edge or personality. Surely better promotion could have been done?
 
I think it's tough to promote an established character to an audience that doesn't really know it.

Look, Dredd isn't Superman or Batman or Iron Man or whathaveyou. He's a cult character from a U.K. comic that's barely made a dent over here, really, in spite of his age. That's not to say there aren't U.S. fans, but for a U.S. market, trying to sell Dredd is like trying to sell...hmm...Martha Washington. Or Scout. Or Airboy. Or a JSA movie. Could it work? Maybe, but the odds are HEAVILY against it gaining mainstream appeal.

And when you're competing for the same eyes as Resident Evil's audience, who do you expect to win? That's right -- the established franchise, even if it's the same inconclusively-ended stuff you've seen for the last 4 films.
 
R rated movies (and the equivalent in other parts of the world) are hard enough to advertise, but this movie was almost all set in darkish hallways. The only time we see any bright lighting is the beginning during the chase scene and then at the end when the doors are opened. That cannot help. And maybe too many people remember the Stallone version and figure it is going to be similar. I don't know.

That being said, it has been a long time since I have felt this way about a movie I just saw, but I want to see it again.
 
This movie looks cool as hell. I can't believe it will be a potential flop. The budget wasn't that high so the coming weeks and home video sales will probably save it. I guess the lack of big names hurt it too with the larger audiences.
 
Well, there's flop and there's flop. This thing's done pretty well overseas, from what I gather. If it does decently in the states, maybe that'll be enough. I think a lot of it has to do with expectations being met or exceeded vs. failing to meet them. If the studio always expected it to be a bit of a dud in the U.S. markets, then it'd make sense that they'd (A) release it overseas first, and (B) be forgiving of U.S. underperformance.

For example, I wouldn't expect something like, say, the Erast Fandorin property (Russian 19th century mystery -- which is apparently fairly popular over there) to do well here, even if it had gorgeous set and costume design and such. Why? Simple. The dude's a no-name here in the states.


The really sad part is that this absolutely validates everything the idiot studio execs already think: if you don't have a big name, you can't make your movie work. I haven't seen the marketing for Dredd, but I'd bet that, as with many other films which are good but underappreciated, the marketing decisions behind it were the real killer because the people in charge of it didn't know HOW to market it without having some lazy sequel name to slap on it.
 
Are we talking Blade Runner or John Carter here?

That's kind of the question, isn't it?

What I was getting at, though, is that there is a "flop" in the sense of "Cost a ton of money and didn't make it back" and there's "flop" in the sense of "failed to meet expectations sufficient to justify a sequel, given the budget."

I'd suspect that if either gets Dredd, it'd be the latter. But it may meet expectations for stateside performance IF the execs have their heads screwed on straight.
 
This film was made on a very tight budget and with such limited advertising support, strong overseas box office, it won;t take much for it to be a good earner for the studio.
 
I certainly hope so. I'd love to see a sequel. I'm happy with what we got if this is it, but I think there's potential to really tell some cool stories in this universe.
 
This film was made on a very tight budget and with such limited advertising support, strong overseas box office, it won;t take much for it to be a good earner for the studio.


I read an article somewhere that it would need to top the 50 million mark in the US in order for them to warrant making a sequel.
 
Yeah, the budget estimates I saw were $45 million for the film. I think this is actually an encouraging potential trend of making quality, lower budget niche films like this which appeal to a more limited audience then gambling on a $300 million tour de force.
 
Saw this last night finally. Loved it. So nice to see in unflinching action film that is also a quality comic book adaptation.

Like some others have reported, nobody was in the theater. 6 people including myself, and 2 of those people got up and walked out halfway through the movie.
 
Saw this last night finally. Loved it. So nice to see in unflinching action film that is also a quality comic book adaptation.

Like some others have reported, nobody was in the theater. 6 people including myself, and 2 of those people got up and walked out halfway through the movie.
People walked OUT!!?:facepalm?

No way they were to bored!
 
Saw DREDD last weekend, and I absolutely loved it. Karl Urban's portrayal of Dredd was spot on, leaps and bounds beyond Stallone's. Great story, great dialogue, brutal action, and the slow-mo effects were beautiful. Lots of stand-out moments too. Like others have already mentioned, only 4 other people were in the theater with me and my girlfriend. It's really a shame too, because the movie absolutely kicks ass. I'll be seeing it again this weekend.
 
Just saw Dredd last night. Wasn't expecting too much based on the fact that it seemed to be another action movie riding on the 3D gimmick but WOW! I loved it! Flnally a future that wasn't super slick but grimy and hey, no flying cars. A definite plus for using locations in South Africa. Now I have to build the costume!
 
Back
Top