Dredd - Box Office

[SmallBlueThing]

I never take any notice of reviews whatsoever. None. If a movie appeals to me in some way, i'll give it a go. I'd imagine the reason Taken 2 has opened strongly is because a lot of people enjoyed the first one and are giving the sequel a go based on that, as well as liking Liam Neeson. If it's as bad as people are saying here, the it's have a significant drop-off in it's second week.
I dont know why no one saw Dredd, but i'd guess that to anyone not familiar with it, it looked like a low-budget remake without any stars. The poster had no 'names' on it, and it promised only violence and a story about a drug bust- perhaps in a time of global depression, both economic and based on conflict, audiences wanted something with more escapism and obvious fun. Maybe Dredd looked like a straight to dvd (or to netflix) title that went to the cinema only to cash in on/rip-off the 'success of The Raid' and to gethe audience to fork out for unnecessary and expensive 3D. I dont know.

SBT

[Gonk]

It's a funny old world we're living in. The reason few people could be bothered to see DREDD and rather sit at home watching "Stars in Their Eyes" and "Blind Date" is the same reason why dross such as "Fifty Shades of Grey" sells millions. I won't mention F.W. here....still.

Too many living in the past. I don't mean nostalgia for the good old days, but outlooks and beliefs that are about 100 years old still clinging on. Is it the Tory conference this week, by and by, as we're on the subject of antiquated, exploded doctrines?

[Michaelvk]

Idiocrasy is slowly, but surely, heading into documentary territory..

[radiator]

The reason few people could be bothered to see DREDD and rather sit at home watching "Stars in Their Eyes" and "Blind Date"

You've just dated yourself by about twenty years with those cultural references... Blind Date and Stars in their Eyes seem rather quaint and charming compared to their modern equivalents.

Here's a few steps Dredd should have taken in order to ensure box office domination:

Scrapped the bonkers and brilliant soundtrack and replaced it with bland, laughably dated sub-Linkin Park nu-metal.

Got rid of the utilitarian Judge uniforms and replaced them with skin-tight shiny PVC with loads of camp-looking muscle definition. Lose the helmet, and replace Karl Urban with Jason Statham.

Edit out all of the blood and aim for a PG-13 rating.

Had all the characters doing repeated backflips in slow motion at regular intervals, during fight scenes so heavily stylised and choreographed that they lack any weight or tension whatsoever and quickly become unintentionally hilarious. When they land, they should land in that manga-esque 'three-point' landing, then slowly look up at the camera and deliver something banal.

Instead of [spoiler]executing Mama in a way that is brutal, unexpected, thought-provoking and somewhat poetic and beautiful[/spoiler], make her and Dredd have an extended kung fu fight scene with lots of slow motion backflips and ludicrous showboating - like running up the walls and dodging bullets like in The Matrix.

[Gonk]

That's right... the invention of photography, radio and phonograph, film and the telephone,all of which appeared more or less simultaneously, brought about a democratisation of "The Arts". Television and groups such as The RollingStones introduced a development of democratisation to one of plebianisation of "The Arts". The level we're at now with the likes of X Factor is one of "cretin-isation" of "culture".

We all participate in it though, we either love it or lump it. (Cliche warniing).

[Stan]

Instead of [spoiler]executing Mama in a way that is brutal, unexpected, thought-provoking and somewhat poetic and beautiful[/spoiler], make her and Dredd have an extended kung fu fight scene with lots of slow motion backflips and ludicrous showboating - like running up the walls and dodging bullets like in The Matrix.

For some reason I thought you said snowboarding. God, that would've been awesome.

But.. 

[Fisticuffs]

:When they land, they should land in that manga-esque 'three-point' landing, then slowly look up at the camera and deliver something banal.

What is it with that ninja landing thing? I guffawed when I saw it in Tron Legacy, and even Spiderman has fallen prey to it I believe.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThreePointLanding

[Gonk]

Laugh it up boys...

"Judge Dredd the Musical" is in the pipeline; with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Graham Norton auditioning vast numbers of wannabes in search of the perfect Dredd co staring with Julie Andrews as Anderson : "The streets are alive with the sound of dum dums"

[Spikes]

How do you solve a problem like Maria (and Walter, presumably).

[The Sherman Kid]

Idiocrasy is slowly, but surely, heading into documentary territory..

Saw Exhibit A at the cinema today -spoilers for anyone planning on going soon[spoiler]Just saw Loopers, 'this decades Matrix' my arse.Besides being incredibly dull and pretentious for almost its entirerity, it has plot holes so big you could sail the US Fifth Fleet through with ample room to spare.The fact that there is exposition to explain away the plot holes which still dont make any sense of it all just makes it worse.That this is doing massive business compared to Dredd, just made me hate it that little bit more  [/spoiler]

[orinAGN]

Okay, I got a question about the box-office.

Apparently, so far it's earned $22,775,000, against a budget of 35-45 million.
But I read that this film also that "the film attracted $30 million in worldwide pre-sales to distributors before filming had even begun".
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118024155?refCatId=13

Does this figure go towards the overall sales at the end of the day?  So, pre-sales + box-office + DVD sales = total sales?
Anyone have any feedback?

[CraveNoir]

No. In short:
DNA buy the rights and put together a film proposal
IMGlobal/Reliance finance the film ($45m), and court distributors.
Distributors buy rights to theatrical/home media. ($30m before the Lionsgate deal). They get the bulk of the take, but money also trickles back to IMG & DNA.
If distributors make big money then they are more likely to buy into a sequel.

[JOE SOAP]

Okay, I got a question about the box-office.

Apparently, so far it's earned $22,775,000, against a budget of 35-45 million.
But I read that this film also that "the film attracted $30 million in worldwide pre-sales to distributors before filming had even begun".
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118024155?refCatId=13

Does this figure go towards the overall sales at the end of the day?  So, pre-sales + box-office + DVD sales = total sales?
Anyone have any feedback?

The film has made $29,533,418 - not up to date - worldwide.

http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/dredd-2012

The film still needs to make money for the distributors; it just so happens that the pre-sales paid for most if not all of the film's modest $35 million production budget, but of course distributors still want to make a lot more than the amount they invested and not lose out. Hence whatever percentage split deal they made with DNA/IMG will need to see profit in multiples to recoup costs.

As far as I know Lionsgate only paid from prints & advertising.

[The Bissler]

Joe, I noticed on your link that they state the budget is $72,000,000. Given that we have all been discussing a budget of 35-45 million dollars (and imdb estimates it to be $50m), do you think that figure is correct? 

[orinAGN]

Joe, I noticed on your link that they state the budget is $72,000,000. Given that we have all been discussing a budget of 35-45 million dollars (and imdb estimates it to be $50m), do you think that figure is correct?

Yeah,  about that.
I've heard 45, 35, 72, and 50 million.
So, which is the real figure, and where's the proof?