Dredd - Box Office

[MR. ELIMINATOR]

I am with darnmarr, pretty confident it's gonna be a hit.

I think the main reason for this is that it will surprise a lot of people. There are a lot of negative people who either hate reboots, or hated the last Judge Dredd, or both. So when they see it expecting it to be shit, they will be even more blown away then say if a film got really hyped up before being released. And then they tell their friends.

Also the fact that it's so violent and gritty I think will make it stand out from other films being released this year, all the other comic book movies have been pretty tame, and also quite bland.

This is a film with cahonies!

[Professor Bear]

Prof - the key difference is that the majority of Americans think Dredd IS the Stallone film - they're not even aware that it's based on a long-running comic series. As far as they're concerned, Dredd is a remake, not a reboot.

I'd argue this, as it would need to be a very narrow band of people who were aware of the Stallone Dredd without being aware of the character's origins given both the wording of blurb for the film even now, and the fact it opens with a montage of two decades' worth of Dredd comics being waved at the viewer.  To be unaware it was a comic book adaptation, you'd have to have never read a single piece of promotional blurb, never seen the opening minutes of the film, read listing information on your cable guide, or ever looked at the internet - that's a pretty small group.  Arguably you would also have had to have been blind, deaf, and an idiot to not cotton on that the screaming levels of camp couldn't have come from a regular Hollywood action film.
I think because of the time gap between Judge Dredd and Dredd 3D, most cinemagoers will view the situation as the equivalent of Batman 1966 vs Dark Knight, and the marketing blurb that assures you it's nothing like the old version seems to back that notion up.  It's saying "that old one was a product of its day, but this is how we do things now."

[radiator]

Most people arent going to remember that a cheesy 17 year old Stallone flicks starts with a montage of comic panels, they're just going to remember that its cheesy.

And not to be snobby about it, but you're giving the average punter too much credit. The majority of the potential audience for a film don't research or read reviews, they just turn up at the cinema and pick a film at random.

I mean bloody hell, my mates are all supposedly film nerds, and I've had to hammer it into their heads about the pedigree of this movie - none of them were aware of Garland or Dod Mantle's involvement for example. They were just completely pre-judging it based on one or two leaked photos. Even now, some of them have declined my invitation to go see it, as they think it looks cheesy, and these are people who happily lined up to see The Raid and Prometheus.

[Professor Bear]

The kind of people likely to pick a film at random are unlikely to pick Dredd when there's an Adam Sandler film out.  See,  I don't think you give punters enough credit - at a certain point, they realise they can hear each other better when they're talking all the way through a talky film rather than action movies.

[James Stacey]

I've been thinking though - where did this perception that higher certificate = lower box office come from? I mean, Batman (1989), one of the biggest blockbusters ever (far bigger than The Dark Knight Rises), was a 15, right?

Batman was the first 12 rated movie.

[chuffsteruk]

I've been thinking though - where did this perception that higher certificate = lower box office come from? I mean, Batman (1989), one of the biggest blockbusters ever (far bigger than The Dark Knight Rises), was a 15, right?

Batman was the first 12 rated movie.

"The film was originally rated 12 by the BBFC for moderate violence and horror but later changed the rating to 15."

[James Stacey]

It was definitely 12 throughout its cinema run. I think they changed it to 15 for home video rather than institute a 12 rating for video too. That came later.

[CYCLOPZ]

Yep Remember seeing it at the age of 12 in the cinema - the 12 rating didn't exist on video at the time.

[chuffsteruk]

It was definitely 12 throughout its cinema run. I think they changed it to 15 for home video rather than institute a 12 rating for video too. That came later.

Yeah, you're right.I might be confusing it with the sequel?

[chuffsteruk]

...which was cut to received a 12...doh!

[Jim_Campbell]

Batman was the first 12 rated movie.

Yep. The BBFC originally wanted it to be a 15, feeling it was too dark in tone and too violent for a PG, and Warner just about shat a brick over their (very, very expensive) summer blockbuster being crippled with 15 cert, so the BBFC basically invented the rating to placate Warner.

Cheers

Jim

[Richmond Clements]

Batman was the first 12 rated movie.

Yep. The BBFC originally wanted it to be a 15, feeling it was too dark in tone and too violent for a PG, and Warner just about shat a brick over their (very, very expensive) summer blockbuster being crippled with 15 cert, so the BBFC basically invented the rating to placate Warner.

Cheers

Jim

And I believe the 12-A rating was created for Spider-man.

[Goaty]

I thought it was Bourne that's 12A was for?

[The Sherman Kid]

Just checked, and the latest Resident Evil took almost $300m. Latest Underworld $170m.

Thats pretty staggering.

These figures are unbelievable. Saw Underworld on DVD just for a look, totally and utterly forgetable film- if there is any justice Dredd will do better.

[Fisticuffs]

Wikipedia states 12A was brought in for Bourne. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_film_certificates#2002.E2.80.932009