Dredd - Grade, Review, Discuss, Spoilers

[Zod]

Ok I saw it on Thursday and loved it. It was a very good movie.

So lets discuss why such a good movie has tanked at the box office. This time of year is usually a slow time but this movie has made next to nothing.

I read last week how 3D is not doing so well so that's where my guess will go as to why this movie has tanked. Since this movie did not have a 2D option correct? (In this area all the times seem to be for 3d and no 2d option was available) I know they charge more for 3d and so maybe that along with releasing the movie this time of year has done this film no favors.

Edit: Ahh I see an above poster did see it in 2d. I wonder why they didn't even offer that around here.

 

[Base_Delta_Zero]

Yeah, I was able to find ONE afternoon showing in 2D 3 towns over. Friends in New York and DC had similar issues finding 2D showings at reasonable distances and times. Calling it Dredd 3D started things off at a huge disadvantage, then they hid the 2D versions like easter eggs. A majority of 2D showings, with limited 3Ds sprinkled in and taking 3D out of the title would have greatly improved box office.

 

[Starkers]

Dredd really is the victim of a horrible vicious circle. They got the funding in part on the back of it having to be a 3D film, but by pushing the 3D element so much they've likely lost revenue.

I'd like to hope if nothing else comes out of this (like a sequel) then at least it might make some in Hollywood think twice about 3D...but then if it weren't for the 3D we quite probably wouldn't have got a great (if unsuccesful) Dredd film at all.

It all makes my head hurt!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Wibbly wobbly fundy wundy?

 

[Starkers]

Wibbly wobbly fundy wundy?

Something like that

 

[The Wormhole]

Ok I saw it on Thursday and loved it. It was a very good movie.

So lets discuss why such a good movie has tanked at the box office. This time of year is usually a slow time but this movie has made next to nothing.

I read last week how 3D is not doing so well so that's where my guess will go as to why this movie has tanked. Since this movie did not have a 2D option correct? (In this area all the times seem to be for 3d and no 2d option was available) I know they charge more for 3d and so maybe that along with releasing the movie this time of year has done this film no favors.

Edit: Ahh I see an above poster did see it in 2d. I wonder why they didn't even offer that around here.

There's defintiely a 2D option, I saw it in 2D. But, really when it comes to 3D movies, 2D screenings are rather hit and miss. A lot of the time theatres don't bother with 2D and when they do, they make it very inconvenient to catch a 2D showing. In fact it's only been in the past few months that theatres in my area have been making an effort to make 2D more convenient. Which is good for me, because I was starting to hike out of area for 2D movies.

But as for why Dredd is failing at the box office, it has long been my cynical opinion that the greater masses simply don't like good movies. They'll flock to see Twilight, Abrams Trek, Transformers, but give them something of quality and substance and they don't want anything to do with it. Of course, this thinking conveniently ignores all the good movies that have been out that have brought in decent money.

Another possibility if you want to be simplistic is that there were no real recognizable actors in the movie. I imagine conversations went like this:
"What about Dredd?"
"I don't know. Who's in it?"
"Some guy named Karl Urban."
"Who's he?"
"I don't know."
"Wasn't he in Star Wars or something?"
"You know what, this one's got the girl from The Hunger Games, let's go see that."
Again, a weak argument that can be easily proven wrong, but I'm sure there's a contributing factor.

Like you say, September is a slow time for movies, indeed in my area the theatres are only open during the evenings now, and there isn't much of a crowd.

And finally, it's possible the Stallone movie may have tarnished the reputation of the Judge Dredd franchise, even seventeen years later.

 

[Admiral2]

Ok I saw it on Thursday and loved it. It was a very good movie.

So lets discuss why such a good movie has tanked at the box office. This time of year is usually a slow time but this movie has made next to nothing.

I read last week how 3D is not doing so well so that's where my guess will go as to why this movie has tanked. Since this movie did not have a 2D option correct? (In this area all the times seem to be for 3d and no 2d option was available) I know they charge more for 3d and so maybe that along with releasing the movie this time of year has done this film no favors.

Edit: Ahh I see an above poster did see it in 2d. I wonder why they didn't even offer that around here.

There's defintiely a 2D option, I saw it in 2D. But, really when it comes to 3D movies, 2D screenings are rather hit and miss. A lot of the time theatres don't bother with 2D and when they do, they make it very inconvenient to catch a 2D showing. In fact it's only been in the past few months that theatres in my area have been making an effort to make 2D more convenient. Which is good for me, because I was starting to hike out of area for 2D movies.

But as for why Dredd is failing at the box office, it has long been my cynical opinion that the greater masses simply don't like good movies. They'll flock to see Twilight, Abrams Trek, Transformers, but give them something of quality and substance and they don't want anything to do with it. Of course, this thinking conveniently ignores all the good movies that have been out that have brought in decent money.

Another possibility if you want to be simplistic is that there were no real recognizable actors in the movie. I imagine conversations went like this:
"What about Dredd?"
"I don't know. Who's in it?"
"Some guy named Karl Urban."
"Who's he?"
"I don't know."
"Wasn't he in Star Wars or something?"
"You know what, this one's got the girl from The Hunger Games, let's go see that."
Again, a weak argument that can be easily proven wrong, but I'm sure there's a contributing factor.

Like you say, September is a slow time for movies, indeed in my area the theatres are only open during the evenings now, and there isn't much of a crowd.

And finally, it's possible the Stallone movie may have tarnished the reputation of the Judge Dredd franchise, even seventeen years later.

Or, a movie where half his face is obscured for the entire time turned off some people that might have come to actually see Karl Urban and not just a helmet.

 

[Reverend]

I think the lacklustre promotion may be a more significant factor than the lack of star power. While there were two trailers and a bunch of bts videos, it all came in a bit of a rush not long before the film was released. That plus for those not closely following the film, it flew pretty far under the radar with none of the kind of viral marketing that can raise awareness of the film. To top it all off, I only saw a few TV spots for the first two or three days after release. Didn't notice any billboards, posters or the like. While I'll be the first to complain about omnipresent advertising, it does make a difference.

I'm assuming the advertising budget just wasn't that substantial, probably because the film wasn't expected to do very well (hence the release date) which of course can often become a self fulfilling prophecy. Add to that the 18 certificate and some possible audience 3D fatigue...the odds were alway stacked against this one.

Personally though, I'd take one *good* film over a whole franchise of creatively compromised ones.

 

[Harvey]

It probably hasn't helped the film (which I haven't seen) that it was released in September, a traditional dumping ground for movies the studios have little confidence in. On top of that, the reviews were fair, but not great. On top of that, as noted, the film doesn't have any major stars (Karl Urban, although he has been in several high profile releases, hasn't been the star of anything successful as far as I know) and wasn't especially well-promoted.

I'm not sure I buy the backlash against 3D argument, although I would be happy if it were true.

 

[Set Harth]

If 3D is actually driving people away, that is a good thing. Eventually the studios will have to take notice.

 

[Zod]

Here is an interesting article on the subject of what went wrong:

5 reasons on why it tanked.

http://whatculture.com/film/dredd-3d-5-reasons-why-it-flopped-at-the-box-office.php

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

Marketing certainly played a part. My friends and I are all pretty film savvy, and I was the only person in our group that even knew the film existed.

 

[Starkers]

Personally though, I'd take one *good* film over a whole franchise of creatively compromised ones.

Amen Reverend

I still don't think the game's quite over, films have tanked before yet proven succesful enough on the rental market to justify another go, and I really do think--as many have said-- that Dredd will do well on DVD. Let's face it, the second Riddick movie cost a lot more, and probably tanked just as bad, yet there is going to be a third because in part the second did good in the rental market.

Never say never...

 

[Harvey]

The Chronicles of Riddick cost $105 million, and grossed $115.77 million worldwide. It certainly wasn't the breakout hit the studio was looking for, but it probably recouped its losses with home video, streaming, and television. Vin Diesel's resurgence in popularity in the Fast & Furious franchise eventually resulted in the third film (currently in post-production), but at a much-reduced budget ($38 million).

Dredd cost $50 million, and so far has grossed $22.79 million worldwide. It's got a ways to go before it recoups its budget. If it sells well on home video, and Karl Urban has a career boost in a few years, it might warrant a sequel, but I'd say the chances are pretty slim. It almost certainly won't get the bigger-budgeted sequel that the filmmakers had in mind.

 

[The Wormhole]

Or, a movie where half his face is obscured for the entire time turned off some people that might have come to actually see Karl Urban and not just a helmet.

Of course, the other side of the coin, seventeen years after the fact and fans are still bitching that Stallone took the helmet off. Hell, the helmet is such a focal point, that practically everything I've seen discussing the movie, stuff on the internet, magazines, on TV all go out of their way to point out that Urban keeps the helmet on.

And no offense to Karl Urban, like I said in my review post he owns the role of Dredd and his portrayal of Dr. McCoy is one of Trek XI's few highlights, but is he really famous enough that enough people saying "I won't see this movie because he keeps his helmet on and we never see his face" would make a serious enough dent in the ticket sales?

 

[JD]

I think a big part of it is the fact that at least in the US most of the people who would be the biggest part of the target audience don't know who Dredd is. The only reason I have any idea is because I hang out on sites like this, but I have a feeling the average American who don't wouldn't have any idea what I was talking about if I brought Judge Dredd up in a conversation. Then there was the poor marketing, I saw a handful of short TV spots, and honestly none of them were interesting. Now, I like Karl Urban, and love Lena Heady, but most people probably wouldn't have any idea who they were if I said their names. Now they might recognize their pictures as a dude who was in Star Trek that chick who banged her brother in Game of Thrones, but they really aren't the kind of people who will draw big numbers. I will admit didn't see it, but it was a very serious contest between this and Looper last weekend, and Looper did end up winning. I feel kind of guilty now that I realize just how bad this is doing.

 

[Reverend]

Or, a movie where half his face is obscured for the entire time turned off some people that might have come to actually see Karl Urban and not just a helmet.

Of course, the other side of the coin, seventeen years after the fact and fans are still bitching that Stallone took the helmet off. Hell, the helmet is such a focal point, that practically everything I've seen discussing the movie, stuff on the internet, magazines, on TV all go out of their way to point out that Urban keeps the helmet on.

And no offense to Karl Urban, like I said in my review post he owns the role of Dredd and his portrayal of Dr. McCoy is one of Trek XI's few highlights, but is he really famous enough that enough people saying "I won't see this movie because he keeps his helmet on and we never see his face" would make a serious enough dent in the ticket sales?

I seriously doubt Urban keeping the helmet on had ANY effect on the box office. I'm sure some people might complain, but those people would be morons and morons should not be pandered to.

And for the record, what was bad about the Stallone movie also had little to do with the helmet staying on or coming off. However, the fact that it *did* come off was just a symptom of the greater problem, which was a fundamental inability or unwillingness to understand the source material, coupled with a desire to pander to as large a demographic as possible by turning Dredd into a quasi-superhero action star. Honestly, him kissing Hershey was a much greater betrayal of the character than the helmet thing.

 

[Starkers]

Yeah, I didn't have a huge problem with the helmet myself, but snogging Hershey? What were they thinking!

 

[JarodRussell]

I think the lack of star power is it. Dredd is pretty much an unlikeable guy nobody can really relate to, and then he is played by a no name. Oh yeah, Eomer and McCoy, and that bad guy from one of the Bourne films. Supporting cast. And who the hell is Lena Heady?

And again, just like with Stallone's Judge Dreed, the helmet has nothing to do with any of the films problems.


And I think the audience runs out of interest. Total Recall tanked, despite looking polished, being PG-13, and having Colin Farrell, Jessica Biel and the girl from Underworld whose name currently escapes me. And Dredd didn't have any big names, didn't look that good and was R. The stories of both films are essentially reduced to "get from A to B and have action scenes in between" and that's it. All in all it's just generic stuff.

 

[Set Harth]

Oh yeah, Eomer and McCoy, and that bad guy from one of the Bourne films.

Don't forget Vaako!